John Bruton is a Carsonite.

jmcc

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
45,996
White Horse said:
Bruton was elected to office by a majority of the Dail, who in turn were elected by a majority of voters.
I know how the process works but the reality is that Bruton and FG did not, technically, get a mandate for government from the people. They had to go into coalition with Labour. The reality is that FG were a minority party and were not voted for in the same numbers as FF.

I am countering the false proposition that unionists thought Bruton was a fool.
Let's ask Pogo or some of the other unionists.

Regards...jmcc
 


White Horse

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
7,012
jmcc said:
I know how the process works but the reality is that Bruton and FG did not, technically, get a mandate for government from the people. They had to go into coalition with Labour. The reality is that FG were a minority party and were not voted for in the same numbers as FF.
The largest party does not always form the government. All FG led governments were after election where FF got more seats.

As for the Rainbow having no madate, I disagree.

The Reynolds led FF/Lab government was formed after the "Spring Tide" election where it is generally accepted that the large Labour vote arose due to a desire to see FF removed from government and Labour comprising a large element of a subsequent coalition with FG.

This is generally accepted by all commentators.

It could be argued that the Rainbow governemnt was a more accurate reflection of the desire of voters than the FF/Lab coalition that initially took office.
 

jjcarroll

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
314
Website
www.semper-idem.eu
jmcc said:
I know how the process works but the reality is that Bruton and FG did not, technically, get a mandate
Technically, the mandate you need for government is a majority in the Dáil. John Bruton got that, so he got a mandate. To say otherwise is ridiculous.

He had no popular support and was not there by the will of the people.
Unless it has escaped your attention, we don't elect the government, our TDs do, so no government is directly there by the will of the people. The best that can be said is that those governments are there indirectly because of the will of the people, and John Bruton's government was as legitimate in that regard as Albert Reynolds.
 

jmcc

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
45,996
White Horse said:
The largest party does not always form the government. All FG led governments were after election where FF got more seats.
That's the difference between FF and FG - FF is a bigger party with a bigger voter base. Coalitions are more unstable than single party governments with a good majority. That element of uncertainty was what made any negotiations with the Brutonite government difficult. The Provos would not move towards a ceasefire and the unionists knew that Bruton was basically a unionist in disguise.

As for the Rainbow having no madate, I disagree.
The only mandate the Rainbow had was a rancid bottle of 1970s aftershave. :)

The Reynolds led FF/Lab government was formed after the "Spring Tide" election where it is generally accepted that the large Labour vote arose due to a desire to see FF removed from government and Labour comprising a large element of a subsequent coalition with FG.
And the Spring Tide demonstrated that crap can float. Collapsing the government was a very stupid mistake by Labour and it led to its takeover by Democratic Left etc.

It could be argued that the Rainbow governemnt was a more accurate reflection of the desire of voters than the FF/Lab coalition that initially took office.
Were you voting back then or is this just history to you?

Regards...jmcc
 

jmcc

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
45,996
jjcarroll said:
jmcc said:
I know how the process works but the reality is that Bruton and FG did not, technically, get a mandate
Technically, the mandate you need for government is a majority in the Dáil. John Bruton got that, so he got a mandate. To say otherwise is ridiculous.
Read it again - FG and Bruton did not get the mandate - the Rainbow did. FG and the Rainbow failed to get relected as the government. And the ballot box provided the verdict on Bruton and the Rainbow.

Regards...jmcc
 

White Horse

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
7,012
jmcc said:
It could be argued that the Rainbow governemnt was a more accurate reflection of the desire of voters than the FF/Lab coalition that initially took office.
Were you voting back then or is this just history to you?

Regards...jmcc
Is this snide comment due to the fact that you cannot counter this opinion with anything approaching logic?

By the way, I voted in this election.
 

jjcarroll

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
314
Website
www.semper-idem.eu
jmcc said:
jjcarroll said:
jmcc said:
I know how the process works but the reality is that Bruton and FG did not, technically, get a mandate
Technically, the mandate you need for government is a majority in the Dáil. John Bruton got that, so he got a mandate. To say otherwise is ridiculous.
Read it again - FG and Bruton did not get the mandate - the Rainbow did. FG and the Rainbow failed to get relected as the government.
Read it again yourself. John Bruton got all the mandate he needed. Fine Gael got a mandate to be part of the Rainbow government.
 

jmcc

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
45,996
White Horse said:
jmcc said:
It could be argued that the Rainbow governemnt was a more accurate reflection of the desire of voters than the FF/Lab coalition that initially took office.
Were you voting back then or is this just history to you?

Regards...jmcc
Is this snide comment due to the fact that you cannot counter this opinion with anything approaching logic?

By the way, I voted in this election.
No. To some of the people commenting on this, it may be history where they had no input. I just wanted to see if you had direct experience of the situation as it stood. Labour were just power hungry and FF took advantage of their greed for power. I am not convinced that the Rainbow was an accurate reflection of the desires of the voters at the time the FF/Lab coalition took office. By the time of the post Rainbow election, the voters had decided against Bruton and co. Perhaps the country would have been better served if there was an election after the FF/Lab coalition fell.

Regards...jmcc
 

jmcc

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
45,996
jjcarroll said:
Read it again yourself. John Bruton got all the mandate he needed. Fine Gael got a mandate to be part of the Rainbow government.
Which is of course slightly different to FG getting a mandate to be the government. :) How many FG deputies can balance on the end of a pin?

Regards...jmcc
 

thegeneral

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2004
Messages
156
hiding behind a poster said:
Yeah, by negotiating the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which gave the Republic a say in Northern affairs for the first time, they were really ignoring those in the North.
You're always banging on about the AIA which apparently supports your idea that FG has some nationalist credentials. The main goal of the AIA was to support the SDLP and assist them electorally against SF to become the pre-eminent voice of Irish nationalism. Did this succeed? Also the signing of the agreement led to unionism coming together as a single monolothic block in opposition to the agreement as they were excluded from it. How did this assist Irish unity in your opinion? I ask this in line with your muddying the waters on the Gay Mitchell thread to try and cover-up what he said by demanding of others their strategies to reach out to Unionists. How do you reach out to Unionists by excluding them? Finally how could ignoring and refusing to talk the political wing of the Provos ever lead to a cessation in violence? Just a few points.

I wouldn't call Bruton a Carsonite, a Redmondite most definetely. There's a campaign out there to build up Redmond as a lost leader of the Irishpeople, to prove he was right and died of a broken heart. I'm reminded of the Furey's song: Yesterday's People with Yesterday's dreams. Home Rule was the best on offer until 1918 and remained such until a better offer was presented. You can see how Bruton and Gay Mitchell would love him as the whole SF/IPP thing is similar to the FF/CnaGFG thing in that they lost both times.
 

jmcc

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
45,996
jjcarroll said:
jmcc said:
jjcarroll said:
Read it again yourself. John Bruton got all the mandate he needed. Fine Gael got a mandate to be part of the Rainbow government.
Which is of course slightly different to FG getting a mandate to be the government.
No it is the exact same thing
No. FG did not receive a mandate from the people to be the government. The Rainbow's mandate was effectively the combined mandate of a number of minority parties. So I suppose it was the tyranny of the lessers.

Regards...jmcc
 

ireland2004

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
316
hiding behind a poster said:
No it wouldn't - its a very basic principle of parliamentary democracy. If you don't have to face the electorate that must live by the laws enacted by a parliament, then you cannot be allowed to seek to influence the decisions made in that parliament by speaking in it. If DUP MPs came down to Leinster House, and delivered such a passionate argument in favour of, say, closing pubs on Sundays, that a few Independents (or indeed anyone) saw the merit of their argument and voted accordingly, would you be happy about that? Likewise if SF MPs came down and passionately argued the case for, say, tax rises - those individual MPs wouldn't be accountable to the people affected by any such legislation passed. Its basic democracy.
Ahh this auld shíte again. Given that people who are unelected in the 26 counties are already allowed to speak in the 26 county Dáil it doesn't say much for the "basic principles of democracy" in the 26 Counties.

That said, if the 26 County Dáil did pass legislation allowing six county reps to speak wouldn't that be in keeping with the "basic principle of democracy" given the parliament is voting for it to happen?
 

White Horse

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
7,012
jmcc said:
Labour were just power hungry and FF took advantage of their greed for power. I am not convinced that the Rainbow was an accurate reflection of the desires of the voters at the time the FF/Lab coalition took office. By the time of the post Rainbow election, the voters had decided against Bruton and co. Perhaps the country would have been better served if there was an election after the FF/Lab coalition fell
I think Labour were determined to alter the traditional relationship with FG. It backfired disasterously for them.

It's very hard to determine what coalition the people want. It is fair to say that a signicant majority of Labour voters wanted a non FF led government.

As for an election following a government collapse, I would agree. For something this serious, the people should be consulted.

The issue I have with some of the posts in this topic is the desire to denigrate Bruton. As we as a nation so intolerant of Irish people who do not beat the traditional nationalist/republican drum?
 

White Horse

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
7,012
ireland2004 said:
That said, if the 26 County Dáil did pass legislation allowing six county reps to speak wouldn't that be in keeping with the "basic principle of democracy" given the parliament is voting for it to happen?
So, if the Dail votes to make Bertie a dictator that would also be democratic?

No, of course it doesn't. We have a constitution that prevents governments doing such things. It is a core principle. So is elected represenatives of the State speaking in the Dail.

The representatives you speak about come from outside the State and have no place in our parliament.
 

pfinnegan

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
19
White Horse said:
pfinnegan said:
John Bruton and a large number of Fine Gaelers like to think they are Redmonites but in fact they are Carsonites i.e. Southerners who support partition. Redmond opposed partition, believed Ulster Unionists should be coerced by force into a United Ireland and endorsed the IVF, precursor to the IRA. His views on partition were similar to the ideas of de Valera and Adams.


Redmond - Limerick October 12th 1913.

"Irish Nationalists can never be assenting parties to the mutilation of
the Irish nation; Ireland is a unit. It is true that within the bosom of
a nation there is room for diversities of the treatment of government
and of administration, but a unit Ireland is and Ireland must
remain.... The two-nation theory is to us an abomination and a
blasphemy."

Now you could cut and paste that straight into a Fianna Fail election manifesto.
No Irish nationalist wanted to partition Ireland. It was inevitable, however, whn the Gaelic separatists decided that unity was less important than anti-Britishness.

John Bruton is a true anti-partitionist. He believes that a British unionist is as Irish as Jackie Healey-Rae. Republicans want unionists to repent the sins and recant. They want them to abandon their identity and culture and try to be good plastic paddies.

Fine Gael stands apart from other successors to Sinn Fein and they want to unify the Irish people, not reclaim land through a victory, whether violent or polticial.
Fair enough but your reply is off topic. Redmond would not accept partition and he did not believe in the principle of consent i.e allowing Unionists to opt out. He fully expected that in the event of UDI the British Army would suppress the UVF. Therefore John Bruton and Fianna Gael cannot claim to be Redmondites.
 

pfinnegan

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
19
commentator said:
94% of the southern Irish are carsonite in that case since that is the percentage which voted to legitimise the Union of Great Britain and N.I. some years ago.
Fair point. In fact you could extend the label to Sinn Fein and PIRA because they also endorsed the GFA. HOWEVER the GFA weakens the Union because it allows the Dublin Government to rule NI by proxy which is why Sinn Fein and PIRA supported it.
 

White Horse

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
7,012
pfinnegan said:
Fair enough but your reply is off topic. Redmond would not accept partition and he did not believe in the principle of consent i.e allowing Unionists to opt out. He fully expected that in the event of UDI the British Army would suppress the UVF. Therefore John Bruton and Fianna Gael cannot claim to be Redmondites.
I don't think they would claim to be Redmonites, but would express admiration for a man unfairly maligned by republicans.

However, I question what Redmond's philosphy would be in the modern context of a long established Northern Ireland state that has recently being reaffirmed in a referendum in both parts of Ireland.

I believe that Redmond would a closer in outlook to FG than to republicansim.
 

pfinnegan

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
19
BarryW said:
pfinnegan said:
John Bruton and a large number of Fine Gaelers like to think they are Redmonites but in fact they are Carsonites i.e. Southerners who support partition
pfinnegan said:
Bottom line; Carson supported partition, same as Fine Gael
This might sound like an outrageous question, but........have you got anything at all to back this up?

When did John Bruton ever say that he supported Partition?

Did you miss the recent Fine Gael Árd Fheis, where FG members voted unanimously to re-affirm their commitment to end Partition?
With all due respect you are missing the point. Redmond would not accept partition and he did not believe in the principle of consent i.e. allowing Unionists to opt out. He fully expected that in the event of UDI the British Army would suppress the UVF. Acceptance of consent is support for partition. If the Nationalist County Councils in Northern Ireland voted for reunification and London consented that would imply support for the repartition of Northern Ireland. That won't happen because repartition of Northern Ireland is not British policy.

Fine Gael's partitionist policy was clearly outlined by Michael Noonan's speech at Beal na mBlath 2001.

"The recognition of the need for consent for any change in the status of Northern Ireland was first formally enunciated by W T Cosgrave in the Dail in December 1922.............................the principle of consent was withdrawn by de Valera in the 1937 Constitution and was eventually restored in binding international law only with the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement by Garret FitzGerald and Margaret Thatcher in 1985".

De Valera's reversal of the principle of consent realigned Irish Government policy with that of Redmond and the IPP. de Valera was a republican, Redmond was a monarchist but their position vis a vi partition was the same and this helps to explain why de Valera and the Fianna Fail party had so much electoral success in the Free State. Their "United Ireland" policies appealed to IPP(Home Rule) voters.
 

pfinnegan

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
19
voiceofretribution said:
pfinnegan said:
commentator said:
94% of the southern Irish are carsonite in that case since that is the percentage which voted to legitimise the Union of Great Britain and N.I. some years ago.
Wrong.

Recognition of Northern Ireland is conditional on the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement which is effectively joint authority. The GFA weakens the Union to such an extent that Unionists now want to repeal it. Ian Paisley is the modern day Carson.
Oh dear you are on a roll today!

I advise you to stop declaring 'wrong' at the beginning of your posts - it has a nasty habbit of coming back to haunt you!

Anway effectively joint authority you say.. So tell me who in the Irsh cabinet is the Northen Ireland Secretary? And tell me what laws have been passed in Leinster House that effected NI directly. And tell me how people in NI can vote for an Irish President? And who can vote for an Irish Parliament? Tell me, where do NI parliament members go? oh yes London! and who's the head of State of NI? yes thats it the Queen. The good friday agreement has safegaurded the unionist veto not only in to NI, but to Ireland as well. Paisley is against it you say, yes, because he thinks it doesn't quite go far enough.. not quite the same as Carson objecting to HR in the first place is it?
The GFA allows the Dublin government to rule Northern Ireland by proxy and compromises British sovereignty. It's swaps de facto recognition of partition with formal recognition in return for the creation of unelected bodies designed to implement Irish Government policy in the North. The Irish constitution was changed. So what. When was the last time an Irish Government acted like Spain and mounted an economic blockade or closed the border? None of the Irish political parties bar Sinn Fein even organized in the North. The GFA is bad news for Unionists.

As for elected representatives; there were no Americans elected to the Iraqi government but we all know George Bush is in charge.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom