La Farina had certain distinct advantages in his conflict with Crispi. Being in opposition it was easy to criticize. Cavour could be held up to Sicilians as bearing the promise of peace and gradualism, while Crispi could be associated with revolution, with the continuance of war, and hence apparently with the need for more taxes, more levies of men and material, and continuing disorder. People were told that the policy of holding an assembly was linked with that of continuing the war into the Papal States, and so with a prolonged emergency, with continued sacrifices, and even the risk of open war with the French garrison at Rome. To a conservative eye, this was to endanger the whole future of united Italy, by attempting too much too soon. Another point was that, as a result of Cavour's alliance with plebiscitary Bonapartism, direct suffrage could now be called ‘the only method held to be legal by the public law of Europe’. A plebiscite might therefore be the only means of securing French permission for the annexation of yet another province by Victor Emanuel. Whereas while an assembly debated, all manner of disasters might happen. Perhaps a European war would break out, or else a diplomatic veto might be imposed on Italian unity. In either event—and this was the decisive point—Sicily would be left at the mercy of Naples. As the Marquis di Rudinì was to put it,