Thread by @gavreilly

A thing most people don’t understand or realise about the Dáil is how the rules are almost designed to get governments out of a rut, helping them keep their own backbenchers happy - and neuter any opposition motion in the process.

Here’s how.

🧵

Firstly, some ground rules.

When the Dáil is debating actual laws, or transacting any business required by law, obviously its votes are binding.

But, increasingly, a fair amount of the Dáil’s time is spent debating not laws, but *motions* - and opposition motions at that.

These motions are debated in slots called ‘private members’ business’ - not because they’re debated in private, but to distinguish them from government (‘public’) business.

Currently there are three PMB slots in the Dáil schedule most weeks.

PMB motions are non-binding.

But even though they’re non-binding, these motions can still carry a lot of symbolism - especially if they’re on a topical, hot-button issue that attracts a lot of outsider attention.

They can therefore put heated pressure on mildly unhappy government TDs.

Here’s an example to explain.

Remember the public outcry at the poor pay offered to student nurses mid-pandemic?

An opposition party might table a motion: “That Dáil Éireann supports paying student nurses a full nurse’s salary for their work during Covid-19.”

This is low-hanging fruit for opposition. It’s non-binding, but that makes it even more symbolic: it’s simply asking TDs if they support the *mere principle* of paying the students for their efforts in the most dreadful of circumstances. Who could possibly vote against that?

But, though the opposition party may tell people they’re putting down a Dáil motion to pay the nurses, they’re not really - they can’t tie anyone’s hands.

At best, they might force the Government into taking a public stance, or making a commitment that can be invoked later.

But imagine if you’re in Government and you’re worried about the consequences of this symbolism. If you pay student nurses at the same rate as full-time workers, do you have to do the same for student teachers on placement? In fact, what about any student on placement at all?…

You might find yourself caught in a pincer: how do I stop myself being forced into an undesirable position, without appearing downright cruel?

And how do I stop my own TDs from voting in favour of this opposition motion, losing the whip and destabilising my grip on power?

Behold: the government counter-motion, a device that allows the government to offer any alternative wording they like - even if it’s totally contrary to the spirit of the original.

And I mean, totally, totally contrary. The polar opposite.

So if an opposition party wants to support a popular but expensive thing, the government can simply propose its own motion with suitably vague wording that endorses the general thrust of its own plans.

And the best bit? The original motion will probably NEVER be voted on.

How? Because a countermotion is almost never a countermotion: it’s an *amendment* to the original.

The Government can simply move amend the motion, changing it to say the total opposite of what the original wording intended.

Let’s go back to the original example.

An opposition party tables a motion: “That Dáil Éireann supports paying student nurses a full nurse’s salary for their work during Covid-19.”

You oppose this. How do you get out of this tricky, unpopular situation?

Easy. You propose an amendment:

“To remove all words after ‘That Dáil Éireann’, and insert: ‘endorses the work of student nurses during the pandemic and supports a fair and sustainable payment system for them.’”

And crucially, the Dáil votes on the amendment first.

(This bit does makes sense: before deciding whether to ratify a motion, you should consider alternative options to that motion.

It’s like looking at a full dinner menu, or at least considering possible side dishes, before committing to your order.)

So an opposition party that says ‘pay the student nurses’ might table a motion to do so, but the Dáil will first have to consider the Government’s alternative wording.

That wording will be put as its own question, giving Government TDs comfort to support it.

So through brute force the Government will amend the opposition wording into something its TDs find suitably supportable.

The Dáil then only gets to vote on the *amended* motion, which has already been butchered to look nothing like the original.

This is often misrepresented in the public mind, especially by opposition TDs trying to accuse the Government of unpopular measures. “You voted against paying student nurses properly!”

But, technically, they didn’t. Those TDs were never asked to vote on your wording.

Instead, they voted on their own alternative instead. They didn’t say ‘pay the student nurses a full wage’, they said ‘pay the student nurses in a way that is fair’. (Who’s against that?)

You can see how this technique can apply to pretty much anything contentious in a PMB slot.

The counterintuitive bit in all of this is that you can amend a motion to say the complete opposite of the original.

No students’ union, no college debating society, would allow you amend a motion saying ‘I hate tea’ to instead declare ‘I like tea’.

But Dáil Éireann does.p

Is that right? Is that fair? Is it appropriate?

Maybe it’s a necessary evil to stop a government from losing TDs every week - the only way in which the country can have stable governance.

But it does mean Government TDs are rarely pushed to vote on something truly contentious.

And that’s how the rules of the Dáil are skewed in favour of governments, by allowing them infinite scope to change the wording of opposition motions, and keep their own TDs on board at the same time.