Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

General Election and Government Formation Megathread (see post #1)

1…177178180182183…193

Comments

  • #5372
    BonnieSituation
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,088 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    hardybuck wrote: »
    If they have I haven't seen it.

    If that's true then perhaps it's more accurate to say that SF got a much tougher grilling over it.

    TBF SF would get grilled about anything they do. It's not that surprising.

    Having all-island input for me is to be welcomed and not panned. FG and FF really could learn from it.


  • #5373
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 55,074 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    BonnieSituation wrote: »
    TBF SF would get grilled about anything they do. It's not that surprising.

    Having all-island input for me is to be welcomed and not panned. FG and FF really could learn from it.

    Maybe, though it doesn't sit too comfortably with me. Essentially it's people who don't live in the state, who can't vote in the state, and who are unaffected by the majority of policies having undue influence on the makeup of our government.

    It's very easy for northern GP members, councilors and MLAs to vote this down, none of them will suffer any consequences for doing so.

    While input may be welcome, I think votes on things like this should be left to members resident in the state in question.


  • #5374
    Itssoeasy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,139 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    I know there is a Dáil Éireann sitting from the convention centre scheduled for this coming Saturday. The only business scheduled that I know of is election of a new Taoiseach. So, presumably if one party(presumably the greens are most likely) votes not to accept the deal then that sitting would be cancelled because it's main reason for happening can't go ahead.

    Also, maybe it's an unanswerable question but if one Party and I'm not picking on the Green Party, but they have the most worrying noises about this deal, do we know what the next step exactly is ?


  • #5375
    hardybuck
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,174 ✭✭✭hardybuck


    BonnieSituation wrote: »
    TBF SF would get grilled about anything they do. It's not that surprising.

    Having all-island input for me is to be welcomed and not panned. FG and FF really could learn from it.

    I suppose that's a view some would have, but I'm personally pretty uncomfortable with stakeholders from another country, and elected officials from another country, having an influence on our Government's formation.


  • #5376
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,524 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Itssoeasy wrote: »
    I know there is a Dáil Éireann sitting from the convention centre scheduled for this coming Saturday. The only business scheduled that I know of is election of a new Taoiseach. So, presumably if one party(presumably the greens are most likely) votes not to accept the deal then that sitting would be cancelled because it's main reason for happening can't go ahead.

    Also, maybe it's an unanswerable question but if one Party and I'm not picking on the Green Party, but they have the most worrying noises about this deal, do we know what the next step exactly is ?
    There'll have been contingency planning about this, though for obvious reasons no-one will be tallking publicly about them just yet.

    Most likely there will be agreement to allow the formation of a minority government to keep essential state functions operating until an election can be held. This could be done, e.g., by the Greens abstaining on the motion to elect a Taoiseach, thus enabling the election by FF/FG of either Varadkar or Martin, but without a parliamentary majority that could allow them to get legislation through or get a budget approved. The new Taoiseach could appoint Seanad members, so enabling the Oireachtas to function to pass necessary legislation on which there was a sufficient cross-party agreement, and talks would immediately begin on the timing of an election (in which the Greens would be shredded, but that's another matter).


  • Advertisement
  • #5377
    BonnieSituation
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,088 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    hardybuck wrote: »
    I suppose that's a view some would have, but I'm personally pretty uncomfortable with stakeholders from another country, and elected officials from another country, having an influence on our Government's formation.

    And that's where me and you differ.

    It's not another country. Different jurisdiction of course...

    Environmental issues don't stop at border.


  • #5378
    BonnieSituation
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,088 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    awec wrote: »
    Maybe, though it doesn't sit too comfortably with me. Essentially it's people who don't live in the state, who can't vote in the state, and who are unaffected by the majority of policies having undue influence on the makeup of our government.

    It's very easy for northern GP members, councilors and MLAs to vote this down, none of them will suffer any consequences for doing so.

    While input may be welcome, I think votes on things like this should be left to members resident in the state in question.

    But there are consequences to them voting in favour as well. Every politician will look out for their own constituency whether north or south and if an MLA feels that the deal is bad for them then they should vote against it.

    Likewise a Cork County Cllr if they feel it doesn't work for them then they should vote against it.

    The GP have long been organised on an all-island basis, no point getting annoyed now about it.

    Environmental issues don't stop at the border for a start.

    Also, it highlights the fact that All-island party politics is something that we should be encouraging to dilute the extremes in all cases.

    And personally, anything that stops Martin becoming Taoiseach and bringing FF back from the dead is to be welcomed.


  • #5379
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,276 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    hardybuck wrote: »
    If they have I haven't seen it.

    If that's true then perhaps it's more accurate to say that SF got a much tougher grilling over it.

    Hadn't read any commentary about it here on this forum but have heard a lot of complaints in real life about it. "No representation without taxation" as one person put it.


  • #5380
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 42,991 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    hardybuck wrote: »
    I suppose that's a view some would have, but I'm personally pretty uncomfortable with stakeholders from another country, and elected officials from another country, having an influence on our Government's formation.
    Have you voiced similar concerns over FF or FG members from "another country" being involved in any party decisions?


  • #5381
    hardybuck
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,174 ✭✭✭hardybuck


    Seth Brundle wrote: »
    Have you voiced similar concerns over FF or FG members from "another country" being involved in any party decisions?

    I don't think either party have elected officials from different jurisdictions influencing the outcome of our Government negotiations.

    I also don't think either party have allowed a situation develop where members who aren't resident here can have such a significant impact.

    No representation without taxation as the saying goes.


  • Advertisement
  • #5382
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 42,991 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    hardybuck wrote: »
    I don't think either party have elected officials from different jurisdictions influencing the outcome of our Government negotiations.

    I also don't think either party have allowed a situation develop where members who aren't resident here can have such a significant impact.

    No representation without taxation as the saying goes.
    Nonsense.
    They're an all-Ireland party and this was known before going into negotiations.
    SF are much the same - would you say that their NI membership should have no say in party policy wihtin the ROI?
    FF & FG also presumably have members from outside the Republic that can vote on party policy.
    I take it for granted that your objections are more towards the GP rather than the fact that some of their members who live in NI have a say in whether or not they form a coalition with FF & FG.


  • #5383
    hardybuck
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,174 ✭✭✭hardybuck


    Seth Brundle wrote: »
    Nonsense.
    They're an all-Ireland party and this was known before going into negotiations.
    SF are much the same - would you say that their NI membership should have no say in party policy wihtin the ROI?
    FF & FG also presumably have members from outside the Republic that can vote on party policy.
    I take it for granted that your objections are more towards the GP rather than the fact that some of their members who live in NI have a say in whether or not they form a coalition with FF & FG.

    My original point was that SF got a hard time over this and the Greens haven't.

    I think both of them deserve criticism over it as I'm uncomfortable with the idea of individuals who don't live here, and can't vote here, having a say in our affairs.

    To your point about my stance towards the Greens, you shouldn't take that for granted, but I do think FF and FG have established more manageable procedures to enable them to enter Government.


  • #5384
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 42,991 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    hardybuck wrote: »
    I think both of them deserve criticism over it as I'm uncomfortable with the idea of individuals who don't live here, and can't vote here, having a say in our affairs.
    Those members don't have a say in our affairs.
    They have a say as to whether their party can be part of a government.
    The members have no say in day to day stuff.


  • #5385
    For Forks Sake
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,850 ✭✭✭✭For Forks Sake


    When are the Greens due to count votes/announce a result?


  • #5386
    Bishop of hope
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,281 ✭✭✭Bishop of hope


    For Forks Sake wrote: »
    When are the Greens due to count votes/announce a result?

    I think all are releasing their results on Friday after they all have voted and counted, as they don't want any result influencing the other.


  • #5387
    Good loser
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,270 ✭✭✭Good loser


    hardybuck wrote: »
    My original point was that SF got a hard time over this and the Greens haven't.

    I think both of them deserve criticism over it as I'm uncomfortable with the idea of individuals who don't live here, and can't vote here, having a say in our affairs.

    To your point about my stance towards the Greens, you shouldn't take that for granted, but I do think FF and FG have established more manageable procedures to enable them to enter Government.

    I would never vote Green.

    Their policies, I feel, are generally somewhat theoretical, like people got together for a seminar to manufacture policies. And everything has to be complicated - maybe this is an Eamonn Ryan trait; he seems to think their policies are always clever and amenable to reason.

    Hence the absurd need for a 2/3rds majority to accept the Program.
    Having a need for 50% +1 would be away too obvious for them!


  • #5388
    dundalkfc10
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,719 ✭✭✭dundalkfc10


    Good loser wrote: »
    I would never vote Green.

    Their policies, I feel, are generally somewhat theoretical, like people got together for a seminar to manufacture policies. And everything has to be complicated - maybe this is an Eamonn Ryan trait; he seems to think their policies are always clever and amenable to reason.

    Hence the absurd need for a 2/3rds majority to accept the Program.
    Having a need for 50% +1 would be away too obvious for them!

    The members voted on 2/3rd majority when giving the chance.


  • #5389
    hardybuck
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,174 ✭✭✭hardybuck


    dundalkfc10 wrote: »
    The members voted on 2/3rd majority when giving the chance.

    But when was that, a couple of years ago when they were a fraction of their current size?


  • #5390
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,524 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    hardybuck wrote: »
    But when was that, a couple of years ago when they were a fraction of their current size?
    Possibly. But I don't see that that would matter. There's no reason why a rule that a decision to enter government requires a 2/3rds majority should be conditional on the party not growing signficantly larger than the size it is when the rule is adopted.

    You could provide that expressly in the rule if you wanted to, but it would be a bizarre decision, in my view. And if that doesn't appear in the rule as adopted by the party, there is certainly no argument for reading it in.


  • #5391
    dundalkfc10
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,719 ✭✭✭dundalkfc10


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Possibly. But I don't see that that would matter. There's no reason why a rule that a decision to enter government requires a 2/3rds majority should be conditional on the party not growing signficantly larger than the size it is when the rule is adopted.

    You could provide that expressly in the rule if you wanted to, but it would be a bizarre decision, in my view. And if that doesn't appear in the rule as adopted by the party, there is certainly no argument for reading it in.

    Ive seen people (on here aswell) who claim to have voted for Greens but they didnt know all party members on Island would get a vote :D


  • Advertisement
  • #5392
    hardybuck
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,174 ✭✭✭hardybuck


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Possibly. But I don't see that that would matter. There's no reason why a rule that a decision to enter government requires a 2/3rds majority should be conditional on the party not growing signficantly larger than the size it is when the rule is adopted.

    You could provide that expressly in the rule if you wanted to, but it would be a bizarre decision, in my view. And if that doesn't appear in the rule as adopted by the party, there is certainly no argument for reading it in.

    It matters because you have a very high bar that you need to achieve before doing anything.

    If we had the same thing for referenda for example, marriage equality and abortion wouldn't have passed.


  • #5393
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,276 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Have frequently given the Greens a one or a two and was never aware of it. In fairness, it wasn't spoken of much until now, most likely because it wasn't an issue until now.


  • #5394
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,276 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Mod Note

    Updated the thread title to reflect that the thread is now more about government formation than the election. Thought about splitting out a new thread but couldn't really locate a good starting point.


  • #5395
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,524 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    hardybuck wrote: »
    It matters because you have a very high bar that you need to achieve before doing anything.

    If we had the same thing for referenda for example, marriage equality and abortion wouldn't have passed.
    Oh, sure. I don't think its a very good rule. I just don't think its goodness or badness is in any way affected by how large or small the membership of the Green Party is. There are plenty of arguments against it, but the fact that the party had fewer members when it adopted it than it has now is not one of them.


  • #5396
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 72,883 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    hardybuck wrote: »
    But when was that, a couple of years ago when they were a fraction of their current size?

    They had a mini split in 2010 and a general reduction in membership between 07-11 as far as I know so its unlikely they were that massively much smaller in membership.


  • #5397
    hardybuck
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,174 ✭✭✭hardybuck


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Oh, sure. I don't think its a very good rule. I just don't think its goodness or badness is in any way affected by how large or small the membership of the Green Party is. There are plenty of arguments against it, but the fact that the party had fewer members when it adopted it than it has now is not one of them.

    It means that the members of the Antrim Branch of the Northern Ireland Farmer's Union could have discreetly join and ensure that the Green Party never enter Government in either the Republic of Ireland or Northern Ireland. Or your local GAA club for that matter.


  • #5398
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 72,883 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    hardybuck wrote: »
    It means that the members of the Antrim Branch of the Northern Ireland Farmer's Union could have discreetly join and ensure that the Green Party never enter Government in either the Republic of Ireland or Northern Ireland. Or your local GAA club for that matter.

    The anti-carpetbagger period in most parties is usually long enough that any mass entryism should be detected and booted out before they gain voting rights.


  • #5399
    hardybuck
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,174 ✭✭✭hardybuck


    L1011 wrote: »
    The anti-carpetbagger period in most parties is usually long enough that any mass entryism should be detected and booted out before they gain voting rights.

    What would I have to do, put in an application form and not say anything for 6 months until my probation period has passed?


  • #5400
    hardybuck
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,174 ✭✭✭hardybuck


    L1011 wrote: »
    They had a mini split in 2010 and a general reduction in membership between 07-11 as far as I know so its unlikely they were that massively much smaller in membership.

    Apparently the membership doubled in size between Jan 2018 and mid 2019, and presumably bigger again in the run up to the 2020 election and the Extinction Rebellion movement.


  • Advertisement
  • #5401
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,524 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    hardybuck wrote: »
    What would I have to do, put in an application form and not say anything for 6 months until my probation period has passed?
    Put in an application form and pay your sub and you can say anything you like during your probation. You just can't vote until the probationary period has expired and your membership has been approved (which may not happen until later).


Advertisement