Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Abolish Seanad

Options
12467…11

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    PRAF
    Registered Users Posts: 1,801 ✭✭✭PRAF


    locohobo wrote: »
    To anyone who is in doubt.
    Is it not best to vote to keep it, vote NO and then PUSH to reform it. Rather than vote to consign it to the scrapheap and forever have lost one thing that keeps check on a power grabbing government....

    1. The government is not accountable to the Seanad. The govt effectively controls both the dail and the seanad
    2. The Seanad has no power. You can't grab power from a body that has no power in the first place


  • Options
    #93
    Son Of A Vidic
    Registered Users Posts: 32,370 ✭✭✭✭Son Of A Vidic


    ArmaniJeanss wrote: »
    How about copying Luxembourg with its parliament of 60 and its population of 500,000?
    Perhaps we should be in proportion to them and increase our Dail to 600 TDs.

    Or maybe the example just clarifies that comparing the sizes of parliaments in countries with 10x different populations is completely hatstand.

    Why would we want to increase the lever of representation and therefore increase our tax burden? Was it not clear from my OP, that I was focusing on a need to reduce the level of parliamentary representation? Hence the reason why I highlighted some of our bigger European neighbours. So in light of that and the point I was making, what relevance has Luxembourg and a larger more wasteful parliament got to do with anything I suggested?


  • Options
    #94
    ArmaniJeanss
    Registered Users Posts: 13,331 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    Corvus Maximus wrote: »
    Why would we want to increase the lever of representation and therefore increase our tax burden? Was it not clear from my OP, that I was focusing on a need to reduce the level of parliamentary representation? Hence the reason why I highlighted some of our bigger European neighbours. So in light of that and the point I was making, what relevance has Luxembourg and a larger more wasteful parliament got to do with anything I suggested?

    You were suggesting we had an overlarge parliament vis a vis comparisons to Germany and Westminster and that we should change to come into line with them. I was pointing out the basic flaw in attempting to copy countries with 10x populations when deciding parliament size.
    My comparison of Ireland to Luxembourg is ludicrous, but I was using it to emphasise how your comparison of Germany/UKs parliament to ours is also completely ludicrous.

    FWIW the 'cube root rule of parliament size' is interesting to google, some good theory on the perfect size of parliament re population.


  • Options
    #95
    PRAF
    Registered Users Posts: 1,801 ✭✭✭PRAF


    Out of interest, what way are the polls looking for the referendum?

    It will be interesting to see what happens. The Irish people who have been so critical of the political establishment have (via the Constitutional Convention) already decided that no reform is required in our electoral system or in the number of TDs we elect. We have also decided via referendum that our Oireachtas cannot be trusted to run inquiries. Now we have a chance to decide if we keep or abolish an utterly ineffective, bloated, undemocratic, elitest and useless second chamber.

    Unfortunately I fear that the govt are making a total hames of selling the message that we don't need a second chamber. 5 or 6 years on from the greatest economic crisis to hit this state and we could be left with a political system exactly the same as the one that played a major role in causing the crisis.


  • Options
    #96
    PRAF
    Registered Users Posts: 1,801 ✭✭✭PRAF


    On another note, I find it both hilarious and nauseating at the same time that the biggest proponents of retaining and reforming the seaned are Fianna Fail. As the most dominant party in the history of the Irish state, they have been in government long enough to have reformed the seaned many times over by now. Instead they were the worst abusers of that institution. Ignoring calls for reform for more than 50 years. Stuffing it to the gills with party cronies, allies, as well as with both failed and aspiring TDs. Even worse, these calls for political reform are coming from the same people who tried to deny the people of Donegal representation in the Dail. It took multiple battles in the courts for them to call a by-election which they subsequently lost.

    It would be monumentally stupid to believe that FF have any intention whatsoever of reforming the seaned.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,679 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    Then again, the referendum (this and appeal's court) should be decided on their own merits - not as a plebiscite on the current or previous governments.


  • Options
    #98
    View
    Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    Manach wrote: »
    Then again, the referendum (this and appeal's court) should be decided on their own merits - not as a plebiscite on the current or previous governments.

    True but if the argument against abolition is supposedly an argument in favour of reform, the credibility of the would-be reformers should be factored into people's decision making.


  • Options
    #99
    Javan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 265 ✭✭Javan


    View wrote: »
    True but if the argument against abolition is supposedly an argument in favour of reform, the credibility of the would-be reformers should be factored into people's decision making.

    The credibility of would-be reformers is completely irrelevant. This referendum is not about reform.

    None of the politicians of any party have any credibility.

    The question we have to answer is would our lives in this country be better or worse without the Seanad.


  • Options
    #100
    seligehgit
    Registered Users Posts: 9,286 ✭✭✭seligehgit


    Fingers crossed the Seanad is abolished, low turnout may swing the vote against the proposal.The wording of the 2 ballot papers was absolutely awful, the government would deserve to lose the referenda on the basis of that alone.


  • Options
    #101
    Lisa2011
    Registered Users Posts: 444 ✭✭Lisa2011


    I want to see the Seanad reformed. If its abolished I truly believe it gives the Government far too much power to do what it wants.

    It can be reformed. I dont believe Enda when he says it cant. The 20m savings is not definite. They cant predict that. I hope its defeated.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Harry Angstrom
    Registered Users Posts: 19,351 ✭✭✭✭Harry Angstrom


    Lisa2011 wrote: »
    I want to see the Seanad reformed. If its abolished I truly believe it gives the Government far too much power to do what it wants.

    It can be reformed. I dont believe Enda when he says it cant. The 20m savings is not definite. They cant predict that. I hope its defeated.

    Do you honestly think that Enda Kenny will create a rod for his own back by reforming The Seanad?


  • Options
    #103
    COYW
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,930 ✭✭✭COYW


    seligehgit wrote: »
    Fingers crossed the Seanad is abolished, low turnout may swing the vote against the proposal.The wording of the 2 ballot papers was absolutely awful, the government would deserve to lose the referenda on the basis of that alone.

    Thought it was just me. It was dreadful. I thought I had gone temporarily dopey when I read them first. Had to read it two or three times. Be great if a 'No' vote was returned in my opinion, as the 'Yes' parties need a wake up call but I will be surprised if it happens. Turn out was dreadful.


  • Options
    #104
    Sir Humphrey Appleby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby


    seligehgit wrote: »
    Fingers crossed the Seanad is abolished,QUOTE]
    Early tallies say that the Seanad may be saved.


  • Options
    #105
    COYW
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,930 ✭✭✭COYW


    Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »
    seligehgit wrote: »
    Fingers crossed the Seanad is abolished
    Early tallies say that the Seanad may be saved.

    Well, it is going to be seriously close. Looks like it may be rejected as Dublin and Leinster are both rejecting it with 55% of the vote, on current indications.


  • Options
    #106
    spank_inferno
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,892 ✭✭✭spank_inferno


    seligehgit wrote: »
    Fingers crossed the Seanad is abolished, low turnout may swing the vote against the proposal.The wording of the 2 ballot papers was absolutely awful, the government would deserve to lose the referenda on the basis of that alone.

    Not just me then.

    I read the ballot paper twice just to be sure.
    Doesnt help that priority is given to Irish over English...... Gaeilge is alien to me.

    The wife put a 'tick' mark in the 'yes' box.
    Again, confusing answering 'yes' with a mark usually deemed a negative.


  • Options
    #107
    PRAF
    Registered Users Posts: 1,801 ✭✭✭PRAF


    spank_inferno wrote: »
    Not just me then.

    I read the ballot paper twice just to be sure.
    Doesnt help that priority is given to Irish over English...... Gaeilge is alien to me.

    The wife put a 'tick' mark in the 'yes' box.
    Again, confusing answering 'yes' with a mark usually deemed a negative.

    Bring back electronic voting!


  • Options
    #108
    Harry Angstrom
    Registered Users Posts: 19,351 ✭✭✭✭Harry Angstrom


    Do you want to abolish The Seanad? Yes ... No

    Please circle your choice.

    There's a lot to be said for plain English.


  • Options
    #109
    Lisa2011
    Registered Users Posts: 444 ✭✭Lisa2011


    I too dont like the fact that priority is given to English either but I voted no to both. I want us to elect the senators not Enda. If its abolished in time people will be complaining that they should have voted no. It will be their own fault.

    Its going to result in 54 amendments to our constitution and a small minority will have made that possible. Seems wrong. Australia fine people for not voting and it should be done here.


  • Options
    #110
    The Dagda
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,345 ✭✭✭The Dagda


    Alan_H_1991 wrote: »
    Can someone please give me some valid reasons why the Seanad should and should not be dissolved

    just bullet points

    only elaborate on one or two of your points if you can

    thanks

    Reasons to abolish the Seanad.

    1. There's too many politicians in this country.

    3. Abolishing the Seanad will get rid of quite a few of them quickly.

    3. Donie Cassidy.


  • Options
    #111
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Harry Angstrom wrote: »
    Do you want to abolish The Seanad? Yes ... No

    Please circle your choice.

    There's a lot to be said for plain English.
    I really, really detest this constant pressure to dumb everything down way below the lowest common denominator.

    It may be that the effect of what we were voting on yesterday was ultimately whether or not to abolish the Seanad, but the actual proposition being voted on was whether or not to give the government permission to amend the constitution. That was the question on the ballot paper, and it was the only question that legally could have been on the ballot paper.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Mr Cumulonimbus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭Mr Cumulonimbus


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I really, really detest this constant pressure to dumb everything down way below the lowest common denominator.

    Why is Harry Angstrom's supposed choice of wording "way below the lowest common denominator"? If it avoids voter confusion, let it happen.


  • Options
    #113
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »
    Why is Harry Angstrom's supposed choice of wording "way below the lowest common denominator"? If it avoids voter confusion, let it happen.
    You could always try reading the rest of my post.


  • Options
    #114
    Banjo String
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,380 ✭✭✭✭Banjo String


    Looks like two fingers given to the govt.

    The senators that campaigned for a yes vote will presumably do the honorable thing now, and resign their seats.


  • Options
    #115
    Mr Cumulonimbus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭Mr Cumulonimbus


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You could always try reading the rest of my post.

    I did. You would agree that levels of voter confusion should be reduced to as low a level as possible?


  • Options
    #116
    My name is URL
    Registered Users Posts: 25,068 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    Banjo String wrote: »
    Looks like two fingers given to the govt.

    The senators that campaigned for a yes vote will presumably do the honorable thing now, and resign their seats.

    HA!


  • Options
    #117
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »
    I did.
    OK, you just ignored it. Fair enough.
    You would agree that levels of voter confusion should be reduced to as low a level as possible?
    Yes. Unfortunately, "as low as possible" precludes asking people a question other than what they're actually voting on.


  • Options
    #118
    Sir Oxman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭Sir Oxman


    Dublin & most of Leinster will carry the No.

    Oh what will the handlers Enda do now?


  • Options
    #119
    tayto lover
    Registered Users Posts: 51,652 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    Looks like a bloody nose for Enda.


  • Options
    #120
    Harry Angstrom
    Registered Users Posts: 19,351 ✭✭✭✭Harry Angstrom


    Sir Oxman wrote: »
    Dublin & most of Leinster will carry the No.

    Oh what will the handlers Enda do now?


    For the life of me, I can't understand why FG tolerate this idiot as Taoiseach. They had their chance to get rid of him before the last election and they blew it. His retort to Micheal Martin that he wouldn't want to embarrass him if they had a televised Seanad debate was the sort of thing you'd hear in a school playground amongst a bunch of 8 year olds.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,521 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    Harry Angstrom wrote: »
    For the life of me, I can't understand why FG tolerate this idiot as Taoiseach. They had their chance to get rid of him before the last election and they blew it. His retort to Micheal Martin that he wouldn't want to embarrass him if they had a televised Seanad debate was the sort of thing you'd hear in a school playground amongst a bunch of 8 year olds.

    You can throw in his comment too about how he won't bother reforming the Seanad, regardless of whether a no vote passes.


Advertisement