The Fine Gael thread

[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?

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!!

Do enlighten us.

[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!!

Do enlighten us.

According to rte news on the day he signed it
So go ask them!

But the financial savings aspect of my prev post answers your question/negates your 'point'.

[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?

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!!

Do enlighten us.

According to rte news on the day he signed it
So go ask them!

I'm asking you, given that you made the point.

He could have referred it to the Council of State and then on to the Supreme Court, of course. But only if he thought it was unconstitutional. I suppose he could have done so regardless of what he actually thought, but all it would do is delay the inevitable and make him look like he doesn't understand his role. Clearly there's nothing unconstitutional about the bill.

[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!!

Do enlighten us.

According to rte news on the day he signed it
So go ask them!

I'm asking you, given that you made the point.

He could have referred it to the Council of State and then on to the Supreme Court, of course. But only if he thought it was unconstitutional. I suppose he could have done so regardless of what he actually thought, but all it would do is delay the inevitable and make him look like he doesn't understand his role. Clearly there's nothing unconstitutional about the bill.

So you now admit he could have stopped it and there were ways and means of stopping the bill

I think you would find a majority of voters would vote against it - nothing more unconstitutional ( or undemocratic )  than putting through such a bill then.
I will state again that I'm not personally against it.
I'd be ok with it but I'd still like to see root and branch clear out if the deadwood in public sector /civil service

[armaghniac]

So you now admit he could have stopped it and there were ways and means of stopping the bill a

There was no reason to stop it.! You can't be stopping every minor revenue measure approved by the two houses of the Oireachtas because people are ranting about it.

I'd be ok with it but I'd still like to see root and branch clear out if the deadwood in public sector /civil service

Unless people vote for a government that will do this, it won't happen. Government carefully avoids any value or performance measures as it might inhibit pet projects. When pay talks resume, performance won't be a big item.

[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?

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!!

Do enlighten us.

According to rte news on the day he signed it
So go ask them!

I'm asking you, given that you made the point.

He could have referred it to the Council of State and then on to the Supreme Court, of course. But only if he thought it was unconstitutional. I suppose he could have done so regardless of what he actually thought, but all it would do is delay the inevitable and make him look like he doesn't understand his role. Clearly there's nothing unconstitutional about the bill.

So you now admit he could have stopped it and there were ways and means of stopping the bill

I think you would find a major voters would vote against it - nothing more unconstitutional ( or undemocratic )  than putting through such a bill then.

I'm not admitting anything. In theory, he could delay every bill, convene the Council of State, refer it to the Supreme Court... but he'd have no justification for doing so.

The bit in bold just demonstrates that you don't know the meaning of the term "unconstitutional". You're getting confused with "unpopular".

[Rossfan]

Going by some of the idiocy above it seems we should only have taxes that people WANT to pay.
That would be great craic

[armaghniac]

Going by some of the idiocy above it seems we should only have taxes that people WANT to pay.
That would be great craic

No, of course not. We should only have taxes that other people pay.

[lynchbhoy]

So you now admit he could have stopped it and there were ways and means of stopping the bill a

There was no reason to stop it.! You can't be stopping every minor revenue measure approved by the two houses of the Oireachtas because people are ranting about it.

I'd be ok with it but I'd still like to see root and branch clear out if the deadwood in public sector /civil service

Unless people vote for a government that will do this, it won't happen. Government carefully avoids any value or performance measures as it might inhibit pet projects. When pay talks resume, performance won't be a big item.

It isn't a minor revenue measure though is it!
Do you think it would get through a referendum?

I know that no gov will revamp and bring cost effective efficiency to the civil service for foreseeable future but it still should be done!

[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!!

Do enlighten us.

According to rte news on the day he signed it
So go ask them!

I'm asking you, given that you made the point.

He could have referred it to the Council of State and then on to the Supreme Court, of course. But only if he thought it was unconstitutional. I suppose he could have done so regardless of what he actually thought, but all it would do is delay the inevitable and make him look like he doesn't understand his role. Clearly there's nothing unconstitutional about the bill.

So you now admit he could have stopped it and there were ways and means of stopping the bill

I think you would find a major voters would vote against it - nothing more unconstitutional ( or undemocratic )  than putting through such a bill then.

I'm not admitting anything. In theory, he could delay every bill, convene the Council of State, refer it to the Supreme Court... but he'd have no justification for doing so.

The bit in bold just demonstrates that you don't know the meaning of the term "unconstitutional". You're getting confused with "unpopular".

Would be unconstitutional after a referendum declares it void legally!
Unless you think it would successfully be passed in a referendum?

Whether you now want t u turn or admit (?? Despite writing it above) it was a course of action he had open to him is all I am saying.
But he chose to go with his party preference rather than the will of the people as was his choice to do so!

[macdanger2]

So you now admit he could have stopped it and there were ways and means of stopping the bill a

There was no reason to stop it.! You can't be stopping every minor revenue measure approved by the two houses of the Oireachtas because people are ranting about it.

I'd be ok with it but I'd still like to see root and branch clear out if the deadwood in public sector /civil service

Unless people vote for a government that will do this, it won't happen. Government carefully avoids any value or performance measures as it might inhibit pet projects. When pay talks resume, performance won't be a big item.

It isn't a minor revenue measure though is it!
Do you think it would get through a referendum?

I know that no gov will revamp and bring cost effective efficiency to the civil service for foreseeable future but it still should be done!

The President doesn't have the power to call a referendum

[lynchbhoy]

Going by some of the idiocy above it seems we should only have taxes that people WANT to pay.
That would be great craic

Obv you are a lonely sad little person crying out for attention hence your little girly jibes at people.

Right I've 'noticed' you.
Can you now go on and do something positive with your life if you have nothing of note to say,

Meanwhile the rest of us may not agree or have different points of view but are man enough to discuss it.
Good luck in the junior cert

[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?

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!!

Do enlighten us.

According to rte news on the day he signed it
So go ask them!

I'm asking you, given that you made the point.

He could have referred it to the Council of State and then on to the Supreme Court, of course. But only if he thought it was unconstitutional. I suppose he could have done so regardless of what he actually thought, but all it would do is delay the inevitable and make him look like he doesn't understand his role. Clearly there's nothing unconstitutional about the bill.

So you now admit he could have stopped it and there were ways and means of stopping the bill

I think you would find a major voters would vote against it - nothing more unconstitutional ( or undemocratic )  than putting through such a bill then.

I'm not admitting anything. In theory, he could delay every bill, convene the Council of State, refer it to the Supreme Court... but he'd have no justification for doing so.

The bit in bold just demonstrates that you don't know the meaning of the term "unconstitutional". You're getting confused with "unpopular".

Would be unconstitutional after a referendum declares it void legally!
Unless you think it would successfully be passed in a referendum?

Whether you now want t u turn or admit (?? Despite writing it above) it was a course of action he had open to him is all I am saying.
But he chose to go with his party preference rather than the will of the people as was his choice to do so!

That doesn't even make sense. There are no legal or constitutional grounds for a referendum. There won't be a referendum. If there was a referendum and the bill was rejected, then the bill wouldn't be passed from the Dail and Seanad to the President in the first place. You're creating these hypothetical scenarios that can't happen.

And the President had no choice. Unless he actually believed it was unconstitutional (and that means in conflict with the Constitution, not something that people don't like), he had no choice but to sign it. That's why there's no u-turn in what i'm saying. I set out the options the President has when he's presented with a bill in general terms, but when you actually apply the facts of this specific situation, he had one option.

The Irish Times spelt it out earlier in the week:

These protests directed at Mr Higgins also show a complete lack of understanding of the powers and function of his office. The only role the President has in considering legislation is to assess, with the advice of the Council of State if he wishes, whether the Bill is constitutional. If he views a Bill to be constitutional he must sign it, irrespective of any view he might have on the policy reflected in it. If he has concerns about its constitutionality he can refer a Bill to the Supreme Court. The Bill relating to water services and water charges passed by the Oireachtas before Christmas may be controversial but it is not unconstitutional.

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/abusive-verbal-attacks-on-president-higgins-mark-a-new-low-in-political-discourse-1.2084446

[Maguire01]

So you now admit he could have stopped it and there were ways and means of stopping the bill a

There was no reason to stop it.! You can't be stopping every minor revenue measure approved by the two houses of the Oireachtas because people are ranting about it.

I'd be ok with it but I'd still like to see root and branch clear out if the deadwood in public sector /civil service

Unless people vote for a government that will do this, it won't happen. Government carefully avoids any value or performance measures as it might inhibit pet projects. When pay talks resume, performance won't be a big item.

It isn't a minor revenue measure though is it!
Do you think it would get through a referendum?

Seriously, apply that test to every piece of legislation that would result in a tax rise, new charge etc.
How many would pass a referendum?

[lynchbhoy]

So you now admit he could have stopped it and there were ways and means of stopping the bill a

There was no reason to stop it.! You can't be stopping every minor revenue measure approved by the two houses of the Oireachtas because people are ranting about it.

I'd be ok with it but I'd still like to see root and branch clear out if the deadwood in public sector /civil service

Unless people vote for a government that will do this, it won't happen. Government carefully avoids any value or performance measures as it might inhibit pet projects. When pay talks resume, performance won't be a big item.

It isn't a minor revenue measure though is it!
Do you think it would get through a referendum?

Seriously, apply that test to every piece of legislation that would result in a tax rise, new charge etc.
How many would pass a referendum?

The abuse given Higgins has no relevance here

Do you not think that the will of the majority of the people should not be adhered to?
If it wasn't a majority then why no referendum to quell all this?

We are not talking about every piece of legislation - just the water one