We have elections every couple of years, and we've elected politicians and they elect governments and they make decisions. - Charlie McCreevy, July 23rd, 1999.
When the Minister for Finance delivered this line just four weeks ago it sounded like a statement of the principle underlying how this Government does all of its business, but it is not.
Mr McCreevy was talking very specifically about the drawing up of the National Development Plan, and why he felt this should be done without public debate on its details. He was not, as we shall see in the coming months and years, talking about abortion, an issue upon which the Government is encouraging seemingly interminable debate rather than making a decision. The process of finalising the £38 billion National Development Plan will begin in two weeks and will end about a month later. Decisions in the plan on developing the road and rail network, on how to develop the State's regions, on whether Dublin's growth should be curbed in favour of developing large urban centres elsewhere, on spending on education, health and worker training will have a huge impact on our lives and those of future generations.
Nobody would have thought a decade ago that there would be such wealth available to invest in all of these things. This is a truly unprecedented moment, when politicians, pressure groups and people could have the luxury of discussing, not how to make the State successful, but how to use that success to shape the future.
As the Taoiseach said last month, "For the first time in our history we are virtually the masters of our own destiny. We have the capacity to realise aspirations which were once the stuff of pipe dreams."
But there is to be no public debate on the detail of how to realise these aspirations. The Government's intention is to treat this national plan in the way previous governments have done: Ministers and their departments will negotiate in private on priorities for spending and development.
There will be private meetings and discussions with senior trade-union, farm and employers' leaders. The end-product will then emerge as a glossy brochure to be "launched" at a ceremony attended by invited guests including these same "social partners".
Mr McCreevy made clear the Government's intention last month after this newspaper published details of a draft memorandum for Government on the plan. He said he had no intention of publishing the detailed draft of the plan in advance of a decision so as to allow for a public debate on some of the major strategic decisions it will contain. "Why would I?" he asked rhetorically at a press conference at the end of July.
Well, the reason he would is that it would be good for this society - and indeed for the Government - if the public felt involved in the discussion of such an ambitious project. Publication of a draft of what is intended would lead to media discussion involving politicians, social partners, pressure groups and members of the public with something to say.
There is much to be said on important issues and absolutely no reason why it should not be said in public. The most basic decision to be made is whether the £38 billion figure is ambitious enough. Should this figure be much larger in light of the fact that the projected budget surplus for 1999 is already much larger than was envisaged when the £38 billion figure was announced? Or has the right balance been struck bearing in mind rapid economic growth will not continue for ever?
Is Mr McCreevy's policy of paying off some of the national debt early rather than spending this money on infrastructural development correct and prudent, or is it conservative and short-sighted?
Should the plan have a bias towards curbing the growth of Dublin with its already creaking infrastructure, or should the city be allowed to expand and develop even more with radically improved rail and road links from its hinterland?
Should several urban centres outside Dublin be earmarked for rapid growth as alternative magnets for investment and people, as recommended by the Economic and Social Research Institute? Would this model for regional development leave rural areas behind, or will they benefit indirectly from proximity to larger urban areas?
These are fundamental questions, and ones which would be discussed and debated constructively if the Government were to publish a draft plan or even a Green Paper. There is nothing unusual about the Government's intention to avoid such discussion. It is rooted in the tradition that government decision-making processes are kept as closed from scrutiny as possible. There appears to be no good reason for it in this case, except that this is the way things have always been done.
However, the Government has discovered uses for consultation and debate. Take abortion, for example. There is no sign of a decision on this one from Mr McCreevy's decisive government elected by politicians elected by the people. While the Government is making a virtue of not telling the public what it is at in relation to the National Development Plan, it appears the same public is doomed to being consulted once again on the abortion issue.
Indeed a lengthy consultation extravaganza is already under way. An expert group has reported on abortion. Its report has been "fed into" an inter-departmental sub-committee on the matter, whose work is being overseen by a Cabinet sub-committee. This process is to produce a Green Paper, a discussion document, on abortion.
The Green Paper will be published, there will be lots of public debate. The Taoiseach will then refer the Green Paper to the All-Party Committee on the Constitution.
There's much more. The All-Party Committee on the Constitution is then to debate the Green Paper. It will report back to the Government, which will then produce (you've guessed it) a White Paper. This is a statement of what the Government intends to do. But whether or not the Government will actually do anything at all after this orgy of consultation is unclear. Cynics have gone so far as to suggest that the elaborate consultation process has been designed to ensure this Government does not have to deal with the abortion issue at all.
(By the way, any readers who by this stage think they remember having been consulted on abortion twice already should not think their memory is playing tricks on them.)
For many on each side of the debate, abortion is an important issue. Consultation and debate are a good thing, although the conduct of the abortion debate is often intolerant and its outcome will certainly not be one of consensus.
In contrast, consensus might be possible on the development plan. But this seminal plan for the future will only be shared with the public when the Government publishes its glossy brochure and tells us the final text is also available on the World Wide Web.
But cheer up. It might give us another go at voting on abortion.