Abolish Seanad

sarkozy · 19-09-2013 12:50am

Isn't the Seanad actually based, in political theory, on classical ideas of republicanism, after Plato, as a formal 'solution' to the threat of 'mob rule'? In theory, upper houses are to act as a rational 'check' on democratic decisions by elected representatives who are at one remove from the pushing and shoving of politics. However, of course, upper houses were never about accountability per se but accountability to elites - i.e. a fudge to give the plebs the illusion of power?

By the time the Irish Constitution was drafted, and on the basis of the Westminster model plus the USA example (which were the fashion at the time), it made sense for Dev et al to go with the flow, albeit with modifications.

This is why I don't get Inda's claim that the Seanad was established to hold the executive to account. It was intended to act as a disinterested arbiter of legislation presented to it by whatever means for approval and referral to the President for promulgation or referral.

Certainly the Seanad doesn't perform this function effectively and the Dáil doesn't perform its functions effectively, either.

Whether the Seanad costs money or not is not the issue - the issue is whether it improves the quality of our governance, and by not discussing this, the phraseology of Fine Gael, and Enda Kenny (and tonight on Vinnie Brown, Leo Varadkar) reveals the party's Francoist leanings.

Anyway, the real debate must be the establishment of real local government, which every government since the foundation of the Republic (and mostly Fianna Fail) have undermined and weakened due to the dominant parties' lust for centralised power.

The FG campaign is fetishising the Nordic examples of unicameral legislatures. I would be very happy to abolish the Seanad if we had a real tier of local government, with local taxation powers, local legislating powers, local services.

The biggest flaw of all in FG's proposals, and all parties debating the issue really, is the unwillingness to address local government and local democracy.

The Corinthian · 19-09-2013 8:13am

sarkozy wrote: »

Isn't the Seanad actually based, in political theory, on classical ideas of republicanism, after Plato, as a formal 'solution' to the threat of 'mob rule'?

That would be corporatism, which we've been discussing. Plato argued for a form of government organized on the basis of function, which is recognised as an early form of the system.

In theory, upper houses are to act as a rational 'check' on democratic decisions by elected representatives who are at one remove from the pushing and shoving of politics. However, of course, upper houses were never about accountability per se but accountability to elites - i.e. a fudge to give the plebs the illusion of power?

Actually, the other way around. For example, the English aristorcracy and monarch slowly lost power over time and increasingly it became the house of commons and not lords that called the shots. However, the latter was retained, despite the fact that it has very little power in reality.

Bit of trivia; there are only two countries that constitutionally include the clergy as members of their parliament, in the World - the UK and Iran.

By the time the Irish Constitution was drafted, and on the basis of the Westminster model plus the USA example (which were the fashion at the time), it made sense for Dev et al to go with the flow, albeit with modifications.

There were lot's of fashions at the time, including Fascism and Communism too, which influenced the Republic. Look at the architectural style of government buildings built at the time - you'll find the same in Rome.

This is why I don't get Inda's claim that the Seanad was established to hold the executive to account. It was intended to act as a disinterested arbiter of legislation presented to it by whatever means for approval and referral to the President for promulgation or referral.

The Seanad was established originally as a consolation prize to the Anglo-Irish ascendency and actually did have not insignificant powers to block the Dail. This first Seanad was abolished and replaced with a 'republican' one which we have today.

Whether the Seanad costs money or not is not the issue - the issue is whether it improves the quality of our governance, and by not discussing this, the phraseology of Fine Gael, and Enda Kenny (and tonight on Vinnie Brown, Leo Varadkar) reveals the party's Francoist leanings.

Which particular Francoist beliefs are you citing? Or is this just one of those lazy parallels where totalitarianism equals fascism?

Anyway, the real debate must be the establishment of real local government, which every government since the foundation of the Republic (and mostly Fianna Fail) have undermined and weakened due to the dominant parties' lust for centralised power.

Yes, more parish pumps and Michael Lowry's in power. Just what we need.

An Coilean · 19-09-2013 10:22am

The Corinthian wrote: »

Yes, more parish pumps and Michael Lowry's in power. Just what we need.

Parish pump politics has its function, filling the potholes is an issue that should be delt with, just not by national polititions, one of the central reasons that people get elected to the Dáil on local issues is that local government is not robust enough to deal with them. How often have we seen campaign groups for local issues having to go all the way to Government ministers to sort an issue? Why, because Government ministers controle the purse strings.

And this is porpagated because it suits polititions to be an interface between the people and the system, they want to be able to say 'vote for me and I will fix x,y and z for you'

echo beach · 19-09-2013 11:52am

An Coilean wrote: »

And this is porpagated because it suits polititions to be an interface between the people and the system, they want to be able to say 'vote for me and I will fix x,y and z for you'

And often they do fix it, the more successful ones anyway, and so get re-elected. They come canvassing on their 'record', which includes asking Dail questions on behalf of an individual or small group (which must waste far more time and money getting answered than the Seanad costs) and getting local issues sorted. They never mention legislation at all, I presume because they take no part in it.
The big carrot for voters is that if they make the 'right' choice they might hit the real jackpot and get a Minister in their constituency because everybody knows that they are the people who can 'deliver' the real goodies - roads, leisure centres and factories.

Grudaire · 19-09-2013 11:59am

Has anyone seen the Labour posters that are after appearing around Dublin

"One People
One Parliment
One Vote"

All that's missing is "One leader" =D

sarkozy · 19-09-2013 12:39pm

The Corinthian wrote:

Yes, more parish pumps and Michael Lowry's in power. Just what we need.

My point is: leave the parish pump in the parish. What we have is a system in which the parish pump is placed in Leinster House's courtyard.

I worked on this issue at policy level around the time of Gormley's aborted reforms. I've thought long and hard about local government. It's my considered opinion that power and greater functions must be devolved to local level and that power and functions must be accountable to people at that level. But only functions that make sense to devolve in order for that power and functions to be genuinely accountable to those who are the beneficiaries of those functions. It is most natural for people to engage in the democratic process on a smaller scale, but the centralising forces of our politics find this threatening.

It simply does not make sense for a national legislature to be concerning itself with potholes. A national legislature concerns itself with setting and enforcing laws, standards and resources to ensure potholes are dealt with. Local governments deal with the potholes, and if they don't they can be more easily be held to account at local level by citizens.

Clearly, not all local governments have the same demographics, economic endowments, revenue-raising capacities, etc. This is why a secondary function of national government is to balance out the inequalities between local governments in the national interest.

However, were a real system of local government to be introduced, it may very well be that some local governments do well - directing local economic development, improving services, etc. - and some may not due to political forces prevailing in particular territories.

But this would be democracy: if democratic politics were to take place at the best possible level (remember Athenian democracy, for its deep flaws by modern standards, worked as it did because of its smaller scale), bad situations arising from the 'parish pump' as you call it would improve because democratic accountability would kick in. You've got to break a few eggs to make an omlette, as it were.

And before the Mods open up a can of whoop-ass for being OT, I believe this debate is central to the Seanad debate, but we're not allowed to discuss it. Enda will not discuss it. They may claim that Big Phil has implemented 'the biggest reform of local government since the foundation of the state'. It isn't. His document (not legislation) did have some positive points but it added up to more centralisation of power by the removal of some Town Councils (while some were colonial left-overs, no effort was made to address this on a rational basis) and the dogged resistance to granting Local Authorities power over local taxation (except for a few tweaks hear and there).

The Seanad referendum (if passed), failed Dáil reform and the refusal to reform Local Government leads one to a very terrifying outcome: an immense concentration of political power in the hands of the Executive.

The cruel irony of your comment is that while I agree we cannot have more Lowrys, Mattie McGraths, etc., the people are voting for localism through the election of national representatives who spend over 60% of their time dealing with local problems like potholes or medical cards rather than engaging in their Constitutional duty: to represent localities on national-level issues. That's poisoning our national governance. My response to you would be, as I said, yes, leave the parish pump in the parish. That's where local politics are most meaningful, where you get most participation and where it's most effective.

If we really got that, then we may not need a Seanad because the Dáil would have to function differently. Or we even dare to be bold and invent a new model for a third tier that can more effectively scrutinise legislation prior to promulgation. We're supposed to be a 'creative economy' now, y'know? Problem is: Ireland stifles creativity.

We should be in the streets about this. But, y'know, This is Ireland.

nuac · 19-09-2013 4:49pm

sarkozy wrote: »

My point is: leave the parish pump in the parish. What we have is a system in which the parish pump is placed in Leinster House's courtyard.

I worked on this issue at policy level around the time of Gormley's aborted reforms. I've thought long and hard about local government. It's my considered opinion that power and greater functions must be devolved to local level and that power and functions must be accountable to people at that level. But only functions that make sense to devolve in order for that power and functions to be genuinely accountable to those who are the beneficiaries of those functions. It is most natural for people to engage in the democratic process on a smaller scale, but the centralising forces of our politics find this threatening.

It simply does not make sense for a national legislature to be concerning itself with potholes. A national legislature concerns itself with setting and enforcing laws, standards and resources to ensure potholes are dealt with. Local governments deal with the potholes, and if they don't they can be more easily be held to account at local level by citizens.

Clearly, not all local governments have the same demographics, economic endowments, revenue-raising capacities, etc. This is why a secondary function of national government is to balance out the inequalities between local governments in the national interest.

However, were a real system of local government to be introduced, it may very well be that some local governments do well - directing local economic development, improving services, etc. - and some may not due to political forces prevailing in particular territories.

But this would be democracy: if democratic politics were to take place at the best possible level (remember Athenian democracy, for its deep flaws by modern standards, worked as it did because of its smaller scale), bad situations arising from the 'parish pump' as you call it would improve because democratic accountability would kick in. You've got to break a few eggs to make an omlette, as it were.

And before the Mods open up a can of whoop-ass for being OT, I believe this debate is central to the Seanad debate, but we're not allowed to discuss it. Enda will not discuss it. They may claim that Big Phil has implemented 'the biggest reform of local government since the foundation of the state'. It isn't. His document (not legislation) did have some positive points but it added up to more centralisation of power by the removal of some Town Councils (while some were colonial left-overs, no effort was made to address this on a rational basis) and the dogged resistance to granting Local Authorities power over local taxation (except for a few tweaks hear and there).

The Seanad referendum (if passed), failed Dáil reform and the refusal to reform Local Government leads one to a very terrifying outcome: an immense concentration of political power in the hands of the Executive.

The cruel irony of your comment is that while I agree we cannot have more Lowrys, Mattie McGraths, etc., the people are voting for localism through the election of national representatives who spend over 60% of their time dealing with local problems like potholes or medical cards rather than engaging in their Constitutional duty: to represent localities on national-level issues. That's poisoning our national governance. My response to you would be, as I said, yes, leave the parish pump in the parish. That's where local politics are most meaningful, where you get most participation and where it's most effective.

If we really got that, then we may not need a Seanad because the Dáil would have to function differently. Or we even dare to be bold and invent a new model for a third tier that can more effectively scrutinise legislation prior to promulgation. We're supposed to be a 'creative economy' now, y'know? Problem is: Ireland stifles creativity.

We should be in the streets about this. But, y'know, This is Ireland.

Good post.

It would have been better if the government had considered some real reforms in Local Government.

Town COuncils should have been reinforced rather than scrapped.

The Corinthian · 19-09-2013 5:04pm

Cliste wrote: »

Has anyone seen the Labour posters that are after appearing around Dublin

"One People
One Parliment
One Vote"

All that's missing is "One leader" =D

You have to be kidding me - who's the PR Muppet who decided to lift that slogan from the Third Reich marketing brochures?

oscarBravo · 19-09-2013 5:06pm

I guess it's Labour's way, or it's Nuremberg's way.

:pac:

theGEM · 19-09-2013 8:19pm

Reading up on the referendum the most important change I think would be the loss of the opportunity to have a referendum on important legislation.

Referral of Bills to the People

The Constitution provides that Bills may be referred to the people for a referendum if a majority of members of the Seanad and not less than one third of the members of the Dáil ask the President not to sign a Bill because it contains a proposal of such national importance that the decision to have such a law should be made by the people. The President may agree or disagree with this request.

If this referendum is passed:

This possibility of the reference of Bills to the people by the President will be removed from the Constitution.

http://referendum2013.ie/the-seanad-other-changes/

But overall the Seanad has served no useful purpose since its inception. I think it creates cronyism and having too many politicians is a bad thing. I think I will vote YES but I am open to changing my mind.

to99 · 21-09-2013 2:07am

What has the Seanad ever done? This sums it up imo. Pretty much.

Nothing.

Sierra Oscar · 21-09-2013 5:15pm

to99 wrote: »

What has the Seanad ever done? This sums it up imo. Pretty much.

Nothing.

I am pretty certain that Democracy Matters don't believe the Seanad is fit for purpose as it is, but instead of abolishing it they are for radical reform - i.e. a new Seanad.

There is a big difference between wanting to maintain the status quo and wanting to reform the Seanad.

Also, for anyone interested the details on how FF would reform the Seanad can be found in this policy document. Senator Katherine Zappone also put forward a very good Seanad Electoral Reform Bill that can be implemented immediately without the need for a referendum, which rubbishes Enda Kenny's claim that it is impossible to reform the Seanad.

SEANAD ELECTORAL REFORM BILL 2013

Unfortunately the government guillotined discussion on the bill.

Manach · 21-09-2013 8:27pm

I'd vote No,
on the basis of a reformed Seanad would have the ability to act as a watch on the Dail. Such a watch would not as easily be marginalised when the government acts in a manner determinantal to say human rights (when it ignored the ombudsman in its handling of the disability grants) or side stepped the constitution (by in a prior referendum spending money on its own behalf).

Sierra Oscar · 21-09-2013 10:05pm

This is an interesting article penned by Professor David Farrell, who was the Head of School at the School of Politics and International Relations in UCD. He also spearheaded the "We the Citizens" assembly, which lead to the creation of the constitutional convention that is currently running in Ireland.

Why I will be voting ‘No’ in the Seanad referendum

This is not the campaign of a radically reforming government: it’s a populist push plain and simple and should not be rewarded. This is why I will be voting ‘No’ on October 4.

The message is - if you want meaningful reform, then vote no.

jasonb · 21-09-2013 10:23pm

The problem though is there's no 'No - We want reform instead' option.

As happens quite a lot with these Yes / No Referenda, the final result ends up being interpreted. So, for example, if the No vote comes out on top, people will say "Well, 'No' won, so we'll leave the Seanad alone, like the people want". Whereas maybe the majority of those people voted No because they want the Seanad to stay, but for it to be reformed.

Would it be difficult for Referenda to have multiple options like:

1. Yes - Abolish the Seanad
2. No - Keep the Seanad as it is
3. No - But reform it instead

J.

Cerco · 21-09-2013 10:24pm

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

The message is - if you want meaningful reform, then vote no.

So we vote no and then what? Do you honestly think that this Government, indeed any Government, will reform the Seanad in such a way as to make it meaningful? This would entail giving a modicum of power to the Seanad which would effectively mean a loss of power to the Dail.

There have been numerous reports under different governments and all were ignored. Last reform of the Seanad was under DeValera. So I would not be hopeful of any real reform.

Sierra Oscar · 21-09-2013 10:25pm

jasonb wrote: »

The problem though is there's no 'No - We want reform instead' option.

The government would be in for a relentless battering, especially from the media and academic world, if they try and claim that there is no appetite for reform should the referendum be defeated.

It simply would not be an option for the government to do nothing.

Cerco wrote: »

So we vote no and then what? Do you honestly think that this Government, indeed any Government, will reform the Seanad in such a way as to make it meaningful? This would entail giving a modicum of power to the Seanad which would effectively mean a loss of power to the Dail.

If the demand is present, then there may be little option but to reform it.

Cerco wrote: »

There have been numerous reports under different governments and all were ignored. Last reform of the Seanad was under DeValera. So I would not be hopeful of any real reform.

This is the first time that Seanad reform has been placed high on the political agenda, and for that the government should be thanked. Indeed if it is defeated they will probably spin that line and claim that having a debate with the view to coming up with workable solutions was the core purpose of the referendum campaign in the first place.

nesf · 21-09-2013 10:37pm

jasonb wrote: »

1. Yes - Abolish the Seanad
2. No - Keep the Seanad as it is
3. No - But reform it instead

J.

Yes, since for 3 we'd have to be voting on a very specific reform of the Seanad that would be put into the constitution, since what we do in these is either add something, remove something or leave it alone with respect to the constitution, we're not actually giving the Government direction though this would be very handy (not that any sane Government will let this kind of thing happen).

Cerco · 21-09-2013 10:38pm

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

This is the first time that Seanad reform has been placed high on the political agenda, and for that the government should be thanked. Indeed if it is defeated they will probably spin that line and claim that having a debate with the view to coming up with workable solutions was the core purpose of the referendum campaign in the first place.

The difficulty is that reform is not on the agenda. There are a few disparate groups calling for it but I suspect they would be quite happy if the referendum were to be defeated and the Seanad left as is. I saw no attempt by Miceal Martin or Michael McDowell to implement change when they were in power.

I would really like a reformed Seanad which could scrutinise and alter bills so as to ensure the beneficial interest of the people is foremost in all legislation and that our finances are properley managed. But I am a realist- this is not going to happen.

Sierra Oscar · 21-09-2013 10:54pm

Cerco wrote: »

The difficulty is that reform is not on the agenda.

I believe that the way to force the reform of the Seanad onto the agenda of the government, and to create a demand for more meaningful political reform of the Oireachtas as a whole, is to vote no.

Cerco · 21-09-2013 11:09pm

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

I believe that the way to force the reform of the Seanad onto the agenda of the government, and to create a demand for more meaningful political reform of the Oireachtas as a whole, is to vote no.

I would really like to believe that too and I know if it is abolished then it cannot be reformed. However I believe that the drive for reform will disappear if the Seanad is retained.
Unfortunately we have a dysfunctional political sytem here where a tiny group, the economic council, make major decisions and we the people are unable to change this. Once a government is elected they can do damn well anything they like and our only recourse is to vote them out at the next election. This is our flavour of democracy and exacerbated when one party gets such a majority.
I see that the people are powerless to enforce reform of the Seanad or the Dail and the political classes are quite content to retain the status quo.

Son Of A Vidic · 21-09-2013 11:46pm

The U.K has I MP for every 92,000 citizens. Spain has 1 Deputy for every 130,000 citizens and German has 1 Bundestag member for every 129,000 citizens.

Tiny little Ireland has 1 TD for every 25,000 citizens. Yes we have a level of parliamentary representation, that is 5 times greater than either Spain or Germany and 3.6 times greater than the U.K. How this is justified is beyond me.

Now if we reversed the trend and copied the German Bundestag, we would have 32 TD's sitting in the Dáil. Too extreme? Well let's copy The House Of Commons level of representation. That would reduce our sitting TD's to 45.

Off loading 121 TD's would save us taxpayers quite a few pennies. A pity all this is conveniently lost in the Seanad debate distraction. For a tiny little nation, the bloated waste that congests the Dáil is beyond ridiculous, beyond embarrassing.

We do not need a TD for every village, cow and goat in the country. Personally, I find it impossible to target the Seanad, without first looking at the biggest source of waste in our parliamentary system - The Dáil.

ArmaniJeanss · 21-09-2013 11:49pm

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Now if we reversed the trend and copied the German Bundestag, we would have 32 TD's sitting in the Dáil. Too extreme? Well let's copy The House Of Commons level of representation. That would reduce our sitting TD's to 45.

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.

locohobo · 22-09-2013 12:13am

Deleted User wrote: »

This is a very tough call. I don't want to see total abolition of the Seanad. I would prefer to see it reformed. We do need an upper house. A number of maybe 12 elected at the same time as the General Election, under the chairmanship of the President.
Problem is, we're only getting to option for a yes or no.

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....

Oakboy · 22-09-2013 1:12am

If there is a Yes vote then the Seanad is doomed forever and the Dail will have complete power. At least with a No vote, there will be some chance for reform.

This cost saving argument is populist bull**** of the highest order. How about cutting the number of Dail seats by 60 instead or cut the 60 seats proportionally between the two houses? Anyone who thinks this referendum is anything other than a power grab is completely deluded

Anyone in doubt over how to vote should just think about how incompetently Enda's government has performed to date. That should help make up your minds

jasonb · 22-09-2013 9:32am

Oakboy wrote: »

Anyone in doubt over how to vote should just think about how incompetently Enda's government has performed to date. That should help make up your minds

Personally I think it's better to vote on a Referendum based on my thoughts and opinions on that particular Referendum's wording, rather than based on my opinion of a Political Party. If I'm not sure how I'll vote, I'd rather go try to find out more about the subject, than just vote against a 'party' based on other factors that are nothing to do with this Referendum.

J.

astrofool · 22-09-2013 11:45am

How can it be a power grab if the Seanad has zero effective power anyway?

An Coilean · 22-09-2013 12:44pm

astrofool wrote: »

How can it be a power grab if the Seanad has zero effective power anyway?

The role of the seanad is to bring people from outside the world of professional politics into the process of drafting legislation to bring a different perspective. It is also a platform for bringing into public life opinions and people such as minority and non mainstream groups that would not otherwise get elected to the Dáil.

Without the seanad, the government, and in reality only a handfull of people at the heart of the government will have control over what voices are heard in our democatic institutions.

We should be trying to open up our democracy to allow people from all walks of life become engadged and have their opinions heard on the national stage, abolishing the Seanad will close off a platform for doing this, and restrict access to the political process to those outside of mainstream politics who are deemed unacceptable or not usefull in the furtherance of the adgenda of the government of the day.

Sierra Oscar · 22-09-2013 4:19pm

It is also important to remember that the referendum proposes a wide range of changes to the constitution, which go beyond just abolishing the Seanad. Unfortunately this is being lost in the debate altogether.

Cllr Jim O'Callaghan (FF legal advisor) did up an interesting article highlighting this.

Other Consequences of Seanad Abolition

The full detail of the Government’s proposal to abolish Seanad Éireann was published recently. The abolition of the Seanad will require over forty amendments to the Constitution. The constitutional system established by our Constitution is so intertwined that abolition of the Seanad requires the amendment of many articles that do not relate directly to the operation of Seanad Éireann.

For instance, Article 12 of the Constitution contains provisions concerning the Presidency. These include the process whereby a President may be impeached for stated misbehaviour. At present the Constitution provides that a proposal to prefer an impeachment charge against the President can be moved by either the Dáil or the Seanad, provided such a proposal is contained within a motion signed by at least thirty members of the House in which the proposal is advanced. This proposal to charge the President with stated misbehaviour will, however, only be adopted if it receives the support of two thirds of the house in which the proposal is moved.

After one of the Houses moves such an impeachment charge against a President, it then becomes the responsibility of the other house to carry out an investigation into the charge. That investigating House determines whether or not the charge should be sustained, a process which requires the support of two thirds of the total membership of that House.

The process whereby one House of the Oireachtas makes the charge and the other House investigates will be removed if the Government’s proposed amendments are adopted, and all issues in respect of the impeachment of a President will be determined solely by Dáil Éireann. The impeachment of a President will then become exclusively under the control of the Government dominated Dáil, notwithstanding the two thirds majority required under the Government’s proposal.

Similarly, the Constitution at present requires resolutions passed by both the Dáil and the Seanad to remove from office Judges and the Comptroller and Auditor General for stated misbehaviour or incapacity. If the Seanad is abolished such removal shall be permissible provided the removal of the Judge or the Comptroller and Auditor General is supported by two thirds of Dáil Éireann. The checks and balances that exist under the current system which requires both the Seanad and the Dáil to vote in favour of such removal will be gone if the Government’s proposal succeeds.

The Government’s proposal also seeks the deletion of Article 27 concerning the reference of legislation to the people. This Article has never been used but it is a very innovative Article that gives the people an opportunity, in certain circumstances, to have their say on legislation that contains proposals of national importance. Article 27 applies to laws that have been passed by the Dáil and, although not passed by the Seanad, have been deemed to be passed by both Houses because 90 days have passed since the Bill was voted down by the Seanad.

In such circumstances Article 27 allows that a joint petition can be addressed to the President by a majority of the Seanad and not less than one third of the Dáil to ask the President not to sign the legislation because it “contains a proposal of such national importance that the will of the people thereon ought to have ascertained.” The President is then required, after consultation with the Council of State, to give his decision as to whether the will of the people ought to be ascertained on the proposed law. If the President believes the people should be consulted, then a referendum shall take place to determine the will of the people on the proposal. If the people vote against the proposal in that referendum then it shall be vetoed.

Article 27 reveals the interlinked checks and balances that exist in the Constitution at present in order to ensure that issues of national importance cannot be steamrolled through the Oireachtas. If the Government’s proposal is passed, then there will be no provision in the Constitution enabling the people to have their say on legislation of national importance. The fact that this provision has never been used before does not mean it should be deleted from the Constitution. There are many ways by which the Government could have sought to amend, rather than delete, Article 27 to ensure that there remained within the Constitution mechanisms for the people to be consulted on laws which contain proposals of such national importance that the will of the people ought to be ascertained.

Jim O’Callaghan
9 June 2013

EFFECT OF SEANAD ABOLITION

Zubeneschamali · 23-09-2013 9:57am

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

I believe that the way to force the reform of the Seanad onto the agenda of the government, and to create a demand for more meaningful political reform of the Oireachtas as a whole, is to vote no.

Did you believe that when abolition was FF policy?

raymon · 23-09-2013 10:16am

Compared to other parties Fianna Fail have by far the worst voting record in the Seanad.
No wonder they want to retain this doss house for themselves.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/revealed-one-in-four-senators-miss-each-vote-29598561.html

It is amusing to see FF party faithful on here defending the Seanad when their party used it with contempt for years. Example Bertie rewarding Eoghan Harris and Ivor Callely with senate seats.

I will be voting to abolish this FF doss house.

nuac · 23-09-2013 11:25am

Has Enda yet agreed to debate this issue?

An Coilean · 23-09-2013 11:34am

nuac wrote: »

Has Enda yet agreed to debate this issue?

nope:(

Sierra Oscar · 23-09-2013 11:54am

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Did you believe that when abolition was FF policy?

Abolition was never party policy that was adopted by the Ard Fheis. It was something that a member of staff probably came up (similar to the situation in FG) when FF were frantically putting together its manifesto for the General Election.

It was immediately overturned at the first Ard Fheis when the membership voted to pursue a policy of reform, and the party leadership has listened to the grassroot members.

raymon · 23-09-2013 1:22pm

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Abolition was never party policy that was adopted by the Ard Fheis. It was something that a member of staff probably came up (similar to the situation in FG) when FF were frantically putting together its manifesto for the General Election.

It was immediately overturned at the first Ard Fheis when the membership voted to pursue a policy of reform, and the party leadership has listened to the grassroot members.

The Fianna Fail manifesto was written by office staff ? Like a typist , or the janitor?

Do you have any basis for this supposition?

golfball37 · 23-09-2013 2:49pm

raymon wrote: »

The Fianna Fail manifesto was written by office staff ? Like a typist , or the janitor?

Do you have any basis for this supposition?

Why would that be hard to believe? Their finance person in the 90's didn't even use a bank.

PRAF · 23-09-2013 3:17pm

An Coilean wrote: »

The role of the seanad is to bring people from outside the world of professional politics into the process of drafting legislation to bring a different perspective. It is also a platform for bringing into public life opinions and people such as minority and non mainstream groups that would not otherwise get elected to the Dáil.

I kind of know where you are coming from on this but I don't quite buy it. The main business of the Seaned is the revising of legislation sent to it by Dáil Éireann. Its main roles is not to bring people from outside the world of professional politics into the process of drafting legislation. If that was the case, then why is it totally dominated and controlled by the main political parties.

In any event, you could argue that the proposed / planned changes to how the Dail legislates will be a far more effective way of getting non-professional politicians involved in the legislative process.

An Coilean wrote: »

Without the seanad, the government, and in reality only a handfull of people at the heart of the government will have control over what voices are heard in our democatic institutions.

If you believe that, you should be arguing for some either constitutional or legislative changes to restrict the use of the whip system. In theory, each of our TDs have free reign to vote as they please on any issue. The whip system is not ingrained into our law, it is purely a party political issue.

As I see it, and as history has shown, the Seaned is a totally ineffective institution with neither the power of the ability to change govt decisions. Given the likelihood of Seaned supporters agreeing on a common way to reform it, that likelihood is zero IMO, then we are better off getting rid of it

An Coilean wrote: »

We should be trying to open up our democracy to allow people from all walks of life become engadged and have their opinions heard on the national stage, abolishing the Seanad will close off a platform for doing this, and restrict access to the political process to those outside of mainstream politics who are deemed unacceptable or not usefull in the furtherance of the adgenda of the government of the day.

Again, I kind of know where you are coming from but I think our PR system is pretty good at ensuring we have a wide range of TDs in the Dail with lots of differing opinions. The likes of Ming, Boyd Barrett, et al are testament to that.

An Coilean · 23-09-2013 4:02pm

PRAF wrote: »

I kind of know where you are coming from on this but I don't quite buy it. The main business of the Seaned is the revising of legislation sent to it by Dáil Éireann. Its main roles is not to bring people from outside the world of professional politics into the process of drafting legislation. If that was the case, then why is it totally dominated and controlled by the main political parties.

Part of the reason the seanad was origionaly created was for the very purpose of giving representation to groups who it was feared would otherwise be crowded out of the political process, most specifically southern protestants/unionists.

While the Seanad is controled by the Government, it has all through its history acted as a mechanism that brings people into the political life of the nation who would not have been elected to the Dáil. David Norris is a good example of this.

In any event, you could argue that the proposed / planned changes to how the Dail legislates will be a far more effective way of getting non-professional politicians involved in the legislative process.

You could, but you could not argue that the proposed changes will be effective in getting voices heard in the legislative process that the government of the day does not approve of or does not see as usefull to further their own end in a given situation. What we will have is the cherry picking of expert opinion that the Government wants heard, that which disagrees with the government line can effectivly be excluded from the legislative process at the whim of those in power.

The proposed changes to the Dáil in effect do little more than give a powerless Dáil more time and a greater scope within which to be powerless.

As I see it, and as history has shown, the Seaned is a totally ineffective institution with neither the power of the ability to change govt decisions. Given the likelihood of Seaned supporters agreeing on a common way to reform it, that likelihood is zero IMO, then we are better off getting rid of it

That has never been the role of the Seanad, the seanad has never been, and is not invisioned to be a second government with the power to over rule the Dáil. It is a platform to allow wider participation in the legislative process and also to allow for a second glance at legislation that has consistantly shown its merit in the past in improving legislation, it also has a role in providing a balance, not a block to government power.

As for an agreed way to reform it, you will find few who would not see the Zappone bill as an appropriat basis around which to reform the seanad. There may be amendments to it if it were to be brought forward, but the broad outline of what a reformed seanad should look like is there.

Again, I kind of know where you are coming from but I think our PR system is pretty good at ensuring we have a wide range of TDs in the Dail with lots of differing opinions. The likes of Ming, Boyd Barrett, et al are testament to that.

I don't think you can compare a handfull of disenting voices from outside of mainstream politics in the Dáil with having a second chamber that opperates as and understands its role to be a platform for the scrutinisation and improvment of legislation.

Nor can you compare in my opinion a scattering of individuals who manage to get through a geographical PRSTV based election with a second chamber that opperates as a platform for outside voices being brought into the legislative process on a national rather than geographical basis.

The seanad has its problems, no one is denying that, but those problems can be fixed, and the basis for fixing them already exists in the Zaponne Bill. We don't need a referendum to fix it, and the only way we will see it fixed is by voting no.

View · 23-09-2013 8:30pm

golfball37 wrote: »

Why would that be hard to believe? Their finance person in the 90's didn't even use a bank.

In fairness, that might have been a sign of wisdom on his part. :-)

View · 23-09-2013 8:32pm

An Coilean wrote: »

Part of the reason the seanad was origionaly created was for the very purpose of giving representation to groups who it was feared would otherwise be crowded out of the political process, most specifically southern protestants/unionists.

No, the Free State Senate was created for that purpose. It, however, was abolished completely in 1936 when it proved politically "award" for the government of the day.

The Seanad - created after 1937 - was set up to be "tame" and was modelled more on the idea of giving "social partners" of the day a voice. In practice, it just became another party political chamber which is largely ignored by our governments as they have in-built majorities (except for one occasion in the 90's when we had a change of government without an election).

PRAF · 23-09-2013 10:35pm

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

Son Of A Vidic · 23-09-2013 10:48pm

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?

ArmaniJeanss · 24-09-2013 11:03am

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.

PRAF · 24-09-2013 1:43pm

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.

PRAF · 24-09-2013 2:15pm

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.

Manach · 24-09-2013 5:26pm

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.

View · 24-09-2013 6:49pm

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.

Javan · 24-09-2013 8:21pm

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.

seligehgit · 05-10-2013 8:02am

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.

Lisa2011 · 05-10-2013 10:46am

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.

Abolish Seanad

Comments