The Fine Gael thread

[Maguire01]

And while I know he's Labour (fine gael junior) Michael D Higgins is not some god like figure "above politics". By signing bills into law for the government he is just as responsible.

You really don't understand the role of the President. Unless he thinks a bill might be unconstitutional, he has no grounds to block or delay it. If he did, he would effectively be subverting democracy.

[foxcommander]

And while I know he's Labour (fine gael junior) Michael D Higgins is not some god like figure "above politics". By signing bills into law for the government he is just as responsible.

You really don't understand the role of the President. Unless he thinks a bill might be unconstitutional, he has no grounds to block or delay it. If he did, he would effectively be subverting democracy.

He signs items into law that the people didn't vote for (or have the opportunity to vote for). That's subverting democracy.

[armaghniac]

And while I know he's Labour (fine gael junior) Michael D Higgins is not some god like figure "above politics". By signing bills into law for the government he is just as responsible.

You really don't understand the role of the President. Unless he thinks a bill might be unconstitutional, he has no grounds to block or delay it. If he did, he would effectively be subverting democracy.

He signs items into law that the people didn't vote for (or have the opportunity to vote for). That's subverting democracy.

They voted for the parliament who then pass the laws. This was not some fundamental issue, it is quite within the competance of parliament to decide on this.

[macdanger2]

And while I know he's Labour (fine gael junior) Michael D Higgins is not some god like figure "above politics". By signing bills into law for the government he is just as responsible.

You really don't understand the role of the President. Unless he thinks a bill might be unconstitutional, he has no grounds to block or delay it. If he did, he would effectively be subverting democracy.

He signs items into law that the people didn't vote for (or have the opportunity to vote for). That's subverting democracy.

By that logic, he should only sign bills after referenda 

How would any new law get passed?

[Maguire01]

And while I know he's Labour (fine gael junior) Michael D Higgins is not some god like figure "above politics". By signing bills into law for the government he is just as responsible.

You really don't understand the role of the President. Unless he thinks a bill might be unconstitutional, he has no grounds to block or delay it. If he did, he would effectively be subverting democracy.

He signs items into law that the people didn't vote for (or have the opportunity to vote for). That's subverting democracy.

People don't vote for laws, they vote for politicians.

And as i've pointed out here before, the majority of people in the country voted for parties that were very clear in their manifestos that they would introduce water charges: http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=22335.msg1419911#msg1419911

So even by your own logic, you're wrong.

[muppet]

This is quite funny.

[trileacman]

minds me of the weightlifters thread.

[lynchbhoy]

Couldn't Michael d have called for a referendum ?

The people may have voted these politicians in - but do you think a referendum would have agreed with their decision about water charges/tax?

Hiding behind those excuses is pathetic

Think the dub protestors were a little harsh with some of their abuse on wee Michael

But it's about time that people got off their holes to protest if they aren't happy with things- then show their disapproval in the next election
- could be a dail full of independents next time out.
Unless ff put up a decent candidate next time out they will lose my vote.
I won't waste it on fg ( I have in the past and he is a good Td) or labour as I don't agree with this gov.

[foxcommander]

And while I know he's Labour (fine gael junior) Michael D Higgins is not some god like figure "above politics". By signing bills into law for the government he is just as responsible.

You really don't understand the role of the President. Unless he thinks a bill might be unconstitutional, he has no grounds to block or delay it. If he did, he would effectively be subverting democracy.

He signs items into law that the people didn't vote for (or have the opportunity to vote for). That's subverting democracy.

They voted for the parliament who then pass the laws. This was not some fundamental issue, it is quite within the competance of parliament to decide on this.

Fine Gael could had added a line in the back of their manifesto indicating that they might want to run over kittens with a steamroller or kill every first born male child if they got into power. People would have still voted for them into government.

[foxcommander]

And while I know he's Labour (fine gael junior) Michael D Higgins is not some god like figure "above politics". By signing bills into law for the government he is just as responsible.

You really don't understand the role of the President. Unless he thinks a bill might be unconstitutional, he has no grounds to block or delay it. If he did, he would effectively be subverting democracy.

He signs items into law that the people didn't vote for (or have the opportunity to vote for). That's subverting democracy.

People don't vote for laws, they vote for politicians.

And as i've pointed out here before, the majority of people in the country voted for parties that were very clear in their manifestos that they would introduce water charges: http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=22335.msg1419911#msg1419911

So even by your own logic, you're wrong.

I give you Fine Gaels 2011 election 5-point plan (front and center of their manifesto)

1. Help protect and create jobs
2. Keep taxes low while fixing the deficit
3. Deliver smaller, better government
4. Create a completely new, fairer, more efficient health system
5. Overhaul the way our political system works to stamp out cronyism and low standards

They kept all these promises to the people that voted for them in the election? Or should we concentrate on the ones they like they hid down the back (pages 66 and 74 of their 80 page booklet and includes a very detailed explanation of their water plan - a whole 2 lines!).

[Maguire01]

And while I know he's Labour (fine gael junior) Michael D Higgins is not some god like figure "above politics". By signing bills into law for the government he is just as responsible.

You really don't understand the role of the President. Unless he thinks a bill might be unconstitutional, he has no grounds to block or delay it. If he did, he would effectively be subverting democracy.

He signs items into law that the people didn't vote for (or have the opportunity to vote for). That's subverting democracy.

They voted for the parliament who then pass the laws. This was not some fundamental issue, it is quite within the competance of parliament to decide on this.

Fine Gael could had added a line in the back of their manifesto indicating that they might want to run over kittens with a steamroller or kill every first born male child if they got into power. People would have still voted for them into government.

Democracy can be very inconvenient, can't it?

[Maguire01]

Couldn't Michael d have called for a referendum ?

The people may have voted these politicians in - but do you think a referendum would have agreed with their decision about water charges/tax?

Hiding behind those excuses is pathetic

No, Michael D couldn't have called for a referendum. He has absolutely no power to do so.

There are 2 triggers for a referendum in Ireland:
1 - a proposed change to the constitution
2 - what is called an 'ordinary referendum' - the president can call one of these if petitioned to by a Seanad majority and one third of the Dail, if it is deemed a matter of "such national importance" (which would appear to be a fairly subjective term, but you could probably argue its application here).

People really need to get an understanding of the constitution and the role of the President.

And anyway, imagine there was a referendum and the water bill was defeated, what then? The deficit still has to be closed. Do we have a referendum for the subsequent hike in income tax?

[Maguire01]

And while I know he's Labour (fine gael junior) Michael D Higgins is not some god like figure "above politics". By signing bills into law for the government he is just as responsible.

You really don't understand the role of the President. Unless he thinks a bill might be unconstitutional, he has no grounds to block or delay it. If he did, he would effectively be subverting democracy.

He signs items into law that the people didn't vote for (or have the opportunity to vote for). That's subverting democracy.

People don't vote for laws, they vote for politicians.

And as i've pointed out here before, the majority of people in the country voted for parties that were very clear in their manifestos that they would introduce water charges: http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=22335.msg1419911#msg1419911

So even by your own logic, you're wrong.

I give you Fine Gaels 2011 election 5-point plan (front and center of their manifesto)

1. Help protect and create jobs
2. Keep taxes low while fixing the deficit
3. Deliver smaller, better government
4. Create a completely new, fairer, more efficient health system
5. Overhaul the way our political system works to stamp out cronyism and low standards

They kept all these promises to the people that voted for them in the election? Or should we concentrate on the ones they like they hid down the back (pages 66 and 74 of their 80 page booklet and includes a very detailed explanation of their water plan - a whole 2 lines!).

I don't disagree for a minute that FG have been a disaster and have failed to deliver many of their promises - in particular number 5, the promises to overhaul the way we do politics.

But the simple point is, everyone knew that FF had signed the country up for water charges, and FF and FG were both very clear that they would introduce those charges. It might have been many pages into their manifestos, but if you didn't know it was going to happen, you must have been asleep.

[Rossfan]

You have great patience Maguire. 

[lynchbhoy]

Couldn't Michael d have called for a referendum ?

The people may have voted these politicians in - but do you think a referendum would have agreed with their decision about water charges/tax?

Hiding behind those excuses is pathetic

No, Michael D couldn't have called for a referendum. He has absolutely no power to do so.

There are 2 triggers for a referendum in Ireland:
1 - a proposed change to the constitution
2 - what is called an 'ordinary referendum' - the president can call one of these if petitioned to by a Seanad majority and one third of the Dail, if it is deemed a matter of "such national importance" (which would appear to be a fairly subjective term, but you could probably argue its application here).

People really need to get an understanding of the constitution and the role of the President.

And anyway, imagine there was a referendum and the water bill was defeated, what then? The deficit still has to be closed. Do we have a referendum for the subsequent hike in income tax?

Very very easy
Get rid of the quangos and wastes of taxpayers monies

Root and branch review and revamp of civil service/public sector.
We don't need pen pushers in triplicate and duplicate in various roles

That easily gives us the money to fund the fixing of water system , it's upkeep etc.

Is personally be happy to pay a small charge but I suspect those who would vote against and win the referendum against the water charges wouldn't

Michael d actually didn't have to sign that bill by the way!!