A Busy Spring?
Read more about: Democracy, Law, Northern Ireland, Referenda 
Notwithstanding the apparent temptation to roll a St. Andrews ratification into a general election, it looks now that the government is backing away from a combined vote in March next year. This means that Attorney-General Rory Brady has more things to think about.
The reluctance to do two-in-one is signalled by Dermot Ahern (ireland.com, subs. req’d):
“If we were having a referendum it would be inconceivable,” he said. “I am giving you a personal view because it hasn’t even entered into our discussion.
“But I think it would be inconceivable that we would have a referendum on the St Andrews Agreement at the same time on the same day as a general election.”
Mr Ahern was speaking to the BBC about speculation that the two polls could take place on the same day.
It’s odd for Ahern to say that it hasn’t been discussed, since the initial word was that Bertie was quite keen on the idea. It seems that one problem is that the British government can’t get an all-party consensus around a 32 county vote:
In the House of Commons, the Conservatives’ Northern Ireland spokesman David Lidington said this week it was inappropriate for voters in the Republic to be asked to accept or reject a deal relating to the internal governance of a part of the United Kingdom.
“Whatever route the Republic of Ireland may intend to follow in this respect, it really would be constitutionally wrong for citizens of the Republic to vote in a referendum on a matter that related solely to the internal governance of the United Kingdom, and that a referendum in the Irish Republic should surely be confined to changes in that country’s constitution or system of government,” he said.
On the Dublin side, there may be a concern that with the timeline for St. Andrews still not firm (e.g., how long are the Sinn Fein grassroots consultations going to take; will McGuinness have to take an oath when the Assembly meets next month?), the general election date could be more a floater than they would want if the two were linked.
There are other options. First, as Simon noted, they could dig up some other constitutional issues that need touching up and combine those with a ratification vote. But turnout is going to be a concern if there are two separate trips to the polling station next Spring. Alternatively, the government could simply declare that St. Andrews doesn’t modify Articles 2 and 3, and so that Oireachtas ratification is enough. But Rory Brady will have to puzzle over that one, and there may be regret that the amended articles from 1998 were not more explicit about how to proceed in this eventuality.
Good article. What are the odds on either side of the abortion debate (yawn) piping up to demand some definitive amendment on that issue being addressed in a spring referendum. Having more than one constitutional issue to decide on the day seems to have become a popular notion – it’s a kind of perverse extension of our general demand for value-for-money politics. I suppose if we’re going to close the schools and pay people to supervise/count votes, we may as well kill two/three birds with one stone. Or so says the prevaling logic.
I’m sure it’s the very last thing any party wants to engage in a couple of months before a general election but the pro-life movement seems to have been fairly active in recent months.
If abortion itself is too sticky, maybe some kind of proxy vote centring on embryonic stem cell research will do? Again, the Government wouldn’t be keen. The prospect of such a divisive debate could be just enough to convince Bertie that a general election and St Andrew’s referendum double bill might be the least worst option. Anyway, the Northern Ireland issue is a winner for Bertie – unlike so many others – that he could yet come around to the idea of adding throwing that issue into the election mix.
Finnegag, I agree, I think putting St Andrews with the election would be a winner for Bertie, exactly the kind of more “presidential” profile that would have worked well. I think the value-for-money thing is part of why they’d want more than one thing on a referendum day if not the election, but also it’s turnout — since it’s hard to imagine much of a No campaign to St Andrews, even with the government funding now required, they’ll be looking at turnout as well as yes-no margin as a sign of endorsement. And maybe more people turn out with more issues, but then those are the more divisive issues. I read one other interpretation somewhere on Sunday, that Bertie now thinks that Assembly elections in the north as the only popular endorsement would be the better bet, because then he’d call a general here around the same date and try and stretch the Shinner resources into fighting two elections at the same time.