THE Irish Republic looks set for a certain early General Election --
despite claims by Prime Minister Albert Reynolds that he was doing
everything possible to avoid a poll.
He again resisted calls to withdraw a charge of dishonesty against
senior ministerial colleague Des O'Malley, head of the Progressive
Democrats, junior partners in Dublin's coalition government.
Mr Reynolds, speaking on the eve of an expected Progressive Democrat
walk-out from government, said the door remained open for talks to
resolve the crisis.
The Progressive Democrats claim Mr Reynolds effectively accused their
leader of committing perjury at a hearing of the continuing judicial
inquiry into Irish meat trade malpractices.
But Mr Reynolds said he was unable to retract a word he had not used.
His government partners said the premier's use -- in his own evidence
to the tribunal -- of the term ''dishonest'' amounted to a charge of
perjury.
They stuck to demands for a ''total and abject apology.''
At a parliamentary party meeting, Progressive Democrats are tomorrow
expected to rule out Mr O'Malley and fellow minister Bobby Molloy at a
subsequent cabinet session.
That would force Mr Reynolds either to announce an election or
struggle on with minority status in the Dail, the Dublin parliament --
and face defeat on an inevitable no-confidence motion within the week.
The likelihood was that, given the loss of Progressive Democrat
support, Mr Reynolds would choose to go to the country, most probably on
December 3.
This date is already set for three potentially divisive referendums
aimed at amending Ireland's constitutional ban on abortion, and
politicians fear it would mean that issue dominating any election
campaign.
Meanwhile, one of Mr Reynolds' former cabinet colleagues, ex-Defence
Minister Vincent Brady, highlighted unrest within his Fianna Fail party
about the premier's handling of the row with the Progressive Democrats.
Mr Brady, dropped from the government line-up earlier this year,
referred to a back-bench view that more care and caution should have
been exercised in dealing with the dispute.
Government in crisis13
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article