Constitutional Convention

CrankyCod

It’s time to stop shouting at the telly, ringing Joe, and muttering into our cans of Dutch Gold: we need to press the reset button.

Nothing works in Ireland now: we’re broke and broken.

After 90 years of Independence the "country" has been reduced to little more than a big life-support machine for banks.

Every aspect of public life needs to be looked at again, in the way that France has gone through several versions of the Republic to arrive at the position they are in today, which is, in short, a lot better off than we are.

That’s not to say that France is perfect but French people have the sense that they own their country, we act as if we’ve been abducted and dropped here and left to make the most of it.

We are, believe it or not, at the stage where a guy dancing on Charlie Haughey's grave is discussed as if it was a serious contribution to the national debate!!

We need a constitutional convention, with delegates elected from each area, completely independent of current “representation”: indeed current membership of the Dawl disqualifies: feck off buddy, you had your chance.

The convention would draft a brand new constitution, put it to a vote and kick off Ireland 2.0 (groan)

The electoral areas themselves would be based on population, not on the boundary of some barony set 200 years ago over a game of cards. These would become departments, named after rivers or mountains and free of the old connotations and tribal bolloxology.

This would obviously offend the GAA and other organisations but fans can still pretend they live in counties if they wish, sport should have no bearing on how we administer real life.

Maybe if we fixed the place up a bit people would not have such a need for escapism and might re-engage with the real world.


So waddya think?

FreudianSlippers

I think you're off your meds. We have one of the best constitutions in the world.
We need transparency in politics and a new generation of people that get into politics for the right reason. We also need to reform the way we bank and borrow money and not blindly do things because they do it that way in the US.

We don't need a new constitution - have you even read our constitution?

Sand

I've read it - There is some decent parts, but its got the most god awful preamble I've ever seen, perhaps the most confused concept of religious freedom Ive encountered and entire sections that would be better ignored. Which it seems everyone has agreed to do.

The only problem with drafting a new constitution is that one issue groups would try to insert their own pet issues as clauses to subvert the legislative process. Rather than being a basic law underpinning the nature of the state and how it should function, it would instead become a wishlist of hippies, greens, peace activists, provos, catholic fanatics, animal lovers, tree huggers, washed up marxists, Joe Duffy regulars and so on.

goose2005

OisinT wrote: »

I think you're off your meds. We have one of the best constitutions in the world.
We need transparency in politics and a new generation of people that get into politics for the right reason. We also need to reform the way we bank and borrow money and not blindly do things because they do it that way in the US.

We don't need a new constitution - have you even read our constitution?

Really?

-The huge religious bias.
-The woman's "duties" in the home
-The lack of provision for children's rights
-The lack of recognition of any family structure that David Quinn wouldn't like
-The near-powerless Senate, with Senate election structured so that it is always filled with party hacks and the Taoiseach's buddies
-The near-powerless President election of a Taoiseach from the Dail, ensuring near-absolute power for the Taoiseach (just as DeV wanted)

As for "one of the best constitutions in the world" - what precise features make it superior to those of other countries?

CrankyCod

The preamble states:

"And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations,"

So how are we doin' so far?

can anyone seriously say that the constitution, in place since 1937, has been successful, even on its own terms?

My original point is that the original "project", to establish an independent state with a reasonable quality of life for ALL it's citizens, has failed by any rational criteria. The first step in building a real republic is to replace Dev's Catholic, insular and outdated constitution.

Manach

Attempts to change the religious ethos of the constitution would be seen as a move against the Catholic population segment, so that from the beginning gives it a large hurdle to overcome in an election to ratify it.

As for electoral areas named after geographical features I believe that comes from the French example - who I believe are on their 5th republic so far.

Finally, after designing & ratification of the constitution comes the difficult part where all three government branches engaged a power struggle to carve out their territories with Judicial activism to the fore.

PeterIanStaker

Religion needs to be taken out of the Constitution its embarassing and backward, but thats a can of worms in itself, mind you give it another decade and the HSE, and most of the ould wans will be dead.

Lockstep

goose2005 wrote: »

-The huge religious bias.

There's very little overt religious bias (forcing religion on people). It mentions God a few times and that's about it. The courts have always interpreted religion fairly broadly (for example, deciding that it would be permissible to allow different opening hours for kosher shops to allow free practice of Judaism)

goose2005 wrote: »

-The woman's "duties" in the home

Agreed, outdated and irrelevant. Courts always work past this but this could easily be fixed by an amendment.

goose2005 wrote: »

-The lack of provision for children's rights

Article 42 doesn't restrict children's rights. Basically gives parents leeway in things like education but Article 42.2 allows the State to intervene to ensure kids meet a certain minimum (education, social, moral, intellectual etc). So if a parent claims to be homeschooling their kid but teaches them nothing, the state can intervene to ensure a minimum of education is achieved.

goose2005 wrote: »

-The lack of recognition of any family structure that David Quinn wouldn't like

The Constitution makes no definition of marriage or of the family. That's a matter for the legislature to define.

goose2005 wrote: »

-The near-powerless Senate, with Senate election structured so that it is always filled with party hacks and the Taoiseach's buddies

Agreed.

goose2005 wrote: »

-The near-powerless President election of a Taoiseach from the Dail, ensuring near-absolute power for the Taoiseach (just as DeV wanted)

The reason that it included a ceremonial president is that it was mainly a continuation of the Free State's Governor General Office. It was also intended that as the President would embody the nation as a whole, acting as a super-ambassador, guardian of the Constitution and neutral rallying figure (as well as a non-partisan Commander in Chief)
Remember when it was written; military dictatorships were appearing across Europe. Ireland had no wish to see this happen.

Ceremonial heads of state are extremely common (Germany, Italy, the UK) so it's certainly not something to get into a tizzy over.

goose2005 wrote: »

As for "one of the best constitutions in the world" - what precise features make it superior to those of other countries?

When it was written it was widely seen as one of the most progressive in the world. Keep in mind when it was written; in 1937, Dev had a single-chamber legislature (dominated by his own party), an incredibly weak opposition and s self-amending Free State Constitution. The assumption was that Dev would create a dictatorship (as was happening across Europe) but this didn't happen, instead he wrote a Constitution guaranteeing numerous rights (both enumerated and unenumerated), democracy and above all, proportional representation.


Making a new Constitution is not something to be done lightly. A Constitution is the bedrock on which a nation is founded and isn't something meant to be changed quickly (for example, the French Constitutions came about after things like invasion by the Third Reich or the complete fall of the FOurth Republic over colonialism).
There's a few things that should be amended but overall, the Irish Constitution reads extremely well, and what's more, guarantees a measure of social and economic rights which was way ahead of it's time.

johnnyskeleton

CrankyCod wrote: »

It’s time to stop shouting at the telly, ringing Joe, and muttering into our cans of Dutch Gold: we need to press the reset button.

Why do we need to press the reset button? Have a revolution, wipe away everything that has been built or created here and start from scratch, like year zero or something?

If there is just one goog thing in Ireland, we shouldn't press the reset button. Besides, all the people we owe money to, do you think they will just simply forget?

CrankyCod wrote: »

Nothing works in Ireland now: we’re broke and broken.[/qutoe]

Quite a lot works in Ireland, especially if you compare to the reality of other countries rather than to some notional ideal of how a state should be run.Likewise, not everyone is broke and broken - 1.8m people are still going to get up on monday morning and go to work, and I'd wager that a lot of those on the dole queue are actively looking to get work or retrain.

CrankyCod wrote: »

After 90 years of Independence the "country" has been reduced to little more than a big life-support machine for banks.

It's not too late to change that without completley destroying everything in Ireland.

CrankyCod wrote: »

Every aspect of public life needs to be looked at again, in the way that France has gone through several versions of the Republic to arrive at the position they are in today, which is, in short, a lot better off than we are.

"Looked at again" - that's such a cop out. If you want real changes you:
1) identify what is wrong;
2) consider the possible alternatives;
3) choose which of the alternatives seems the best;
4) if that alternative doesn't work try a new one.

If you want change for change's sake, let's just scrap the constitution and create a new one that will probably be very similar, but somehow new and better.

Each time France has gone through a republic it is usually because the last republic ended in violence rather than due to any economic or constitutional problems. The economy and laws of each new republic were broadly similar, certainly in comparison with what went on in between e.g. the reign of terror or Napoleon's empire.

CrankyCod wrote: »

That’s not to say that France is perfect but French people have the sense that they own their country, we act as if we’ve been abducted and dropped here and left to make the most of it.

I fail to see how we will "own" our own country more by destroying it.

CrankyCod wrote: »

We need a constitutional convention, with delegates elected from each area, completely independent of current “representation”: indeed current membership of the Dawl disqualifies: feck off buddy, you had your chance.

The last thing we need is another bloody committee.

CrankyCod wrote: »

The convention would draft a brand new constitution, put it to a vote and kick off Ireland 2.0 (groan)

How is that better than looking at our current consitution, seeing what changes could be made (goose2005 has a list of his views which are fairly representative of most people) and then once they are decided we could all vote on them as individual amendments rather than offering us a piecemeal take it or leave it constitution. What would happen if people voted no to the new constitution because for everyone there was a sticking point? At least if they voted on a point by point basis we could get a truer democratic decision on it e.g. keep the reglious stuff but lose the woman in the home thing; insert new children's rights but not the part about the HSE taking children away etc.

CrankyCod wrote: »

The electoral areas themselves would be based on population, not on the boundary of some barony set 200 years ago over a game of cards. These would become departments, named after rivers or mountains and free of the old connotations and tribal bolloxology.

Umm, the boundaries are reviewed every 12 years or so based on population. Different numbers of seats also apply. They are based around counties or urban areas because it is easier to organise it that way rather than having department 627 or whatever. It is also very hard to draw and redraw constituences, so an exact population:seats ratio can never be struck. However, there are defined limits for such areas. Overall, the seats are spread more or less according to population, with a slight bias against large urban areas which have increased in population recently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_constituencies_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland

If anything, I would be in favour of less seats and bigger constituencies (e.g. 10 constituencies with 450k people and 5 seats each), or, although such a thing would be too unwieldy, one big constituence.

However, the problem is that people like their "own" representatives. The people of Kerry wouldn't want to be rpresented by fellas from Cork, the people of Mayo wouldn't want to share a bed with them from Galway, and no one would want to be in the same area as Dublin.

Maybe a benefit would be that areas with a higher voter turnout would have more influence than the areas where few people vote, thus forcing politicians to pander to national issues that affect everybody rather than local individual issues.

CrankyCod wrote: »

can anyone seriously say that the constitution, in place since 1937, has been successful, even on its own terms?

Yes, it has provided rights which you take for granted but which people in other countries die for. Rights such as freedom of speech, ownership of property and the right to a fair trial/redress in the courts. These are crucial rights but we have gotten used to them and don't give them any more thought than we do the air we breathe. Please don't try to take away those rights.

Case in point - we are the only nation in Europe that has to have a referendum for each change to the treaty. Why? Because our constitution requires it.

CrankyCod wrote: »

My original point is that the original "project", to establish an independent state with a reasonable quality of life for ALL it's citizens, has failed by any rational criteria. The first step in building a real republic is to replace Dev's Catholic, insular and outdated constitution.

By rational criteria such as VI Lenin's - has it brought peace, bread and land - it is a roaring success. If you don't have a job or property in Ireland you get housed, educated, medically treated and given far more generous hand outs than in any other country in the world. If you don't have a job or property in most countries in the world, you starve.

How exactly is the constitution outdated? Please give specific examples. Then, for each of those specific examples, please explain to me how it cannot be cured by amending the constitution. Then, explain to me in that context why we have to abadon the old constitution and adopt a new one.

CrankyCod

Why do we need to press the reset button? Have a revolution, wipe away everything that has been built or created here and start from scratch, like year zero or something?

We've never had a revolution and that's the problem. The UK and all other countries in Europe have at some stage been forced to consider what kind of country they want to live in. Whether theser reviews were caused by external aggression (German invasion of France) or internal conflict (English Civil War) hardly matters. We changed the colour of the postboxes in 1922 and decided to call it a revolution,even though land ownership, the legal system and the parliamentary style of governmentn didn't change. Some revolution.
So yes, we need a complete revolution in the literal sense.

all the people we owe money to, do you think they will just simply forget?

No, but we can renegotiate the terms if we cease to be in thrall to the markets and trying to impress the FT with the size of our fiscal cojones.

Quite a lot works in Ireland, especially if you compare to the reality of other countries rather than to some notional ideal of how a state should be run.

Thats my entire point: I have been all over the world and compared how this place is run, and it is dysfunctional. We subsidise peat-burning power stations and impose a carbon tax, we subsidise bike-to-work scheme and allow acres of hard shoulder to go to waste when it could be used as cycle paths, we close the only rail link to Rosslare and try to promote tourism!
What works here?

a lot of those on the dole queue are actively looking to get work or retrain.

There is no work out there. Retraining is handled by FÁS. Unemployed chefs are being sent on warehouse management courses, just to make up the numbers.
At least 500,000 people are out of work; is this living? Or just waiting around for something to happen? Is that what you think of as a functional state?

"Looked at again" - that's such a cop out. If you want real changes you:
1) identify what is wrong;
2) consider the possible alternatives;
3) choose which of the alternatives seems the best;
4) if that alternative doesn't work try a new one.

I agree wholeheartedly, and that's what I mean by a constitutional convention, not a committee; real representation of and by the people.

What would happen if people voted no to the new constitution because for everyone there was a sticking point? At least if they voted on a point by point basis we could get a truer democratic decision on it e.g. keep the reglious stuff but lose the woman in the home thing; insert new children's rights but not the part about the HSE taking children away etc.

Each new article could be voted on individually if that would make the process more constructive. At present there is no incentive to review the fundamentals that underpin the current mess; there hasn't been any real change since the roof fell in two years ago, that's why I believe we need to start from the ground up.

Yes, it has provided rights which you take for granted but which people in other countries die for. Rights such as freedom of speech, ownership of property and the right to a fair trial/redress in the courts. These are crucial rights but we have gotten used to them and don't give them any more thought than we do the air we breathe. Please don't try to take away those rights.

I take these for granted because they are rights. Rights like contraception, decriminalisation of homosexuality, women's equality only exist in Ireland because of our memebership of the EU, so these came about despite Dev's constitution. Anyway, do you really believe that we have freedom of speech; why is it that nobody in the media mentioned corruption until two lawyers from Belfast offered a reward for info regarding planning fiddles? the libel laws here protect the wealthy and the guilty.

Case in point - we are the only nation in Europe that has to have a referendum for each change to the treaty. Why? Because our constitution requires it.

And the reason why that's seen as a good thing? Because we don't trust our public representatives to govern and make decisions on our behalf, which is the definition of a republic. In any case, a referendum is a costly waste of time if it has to be repeated over and over again until we give the "right" answer.

If you don't have a job or property in Ireland you get housed, educated, medically treated and given far more generous hand outs than in any other country in the world.

Hand outs? Have you had to deal wit hthe bureacrats who administer this generosity? 3 months wiating of r dole payments? Married men gettign 14 euro per week becasue their wives work as cleaners? There would be no need for that patronising treatment of 500,000 people if the place was governed correctly, and I say again, the reason we don't have a functioning state is because the fundamentals are flawed.

There is no point in tinkering with a constitution that was written when the world was overrun with fascism and communism, and written for a conservative, white, male-dominated Catholic rural, peasant country.

We need a complete review, and the constitution is only the start.

Lockstep

CrankyCod wrote: »

We've never had a revolution and that's the problem. The UK and all other countries in Europe have at some stage been forced to consider what kind of country they want to live in. Whether theser reviews were caused by external aggression (German invasion of France) or internal conflict (English Civil War) hardly matters. We changed the colour of the postboxes in 1922 and decided to call it a revolution,even though land ownership, the legal system and the parliamentary style of governmentn didn't change. Some revolution.
So yes, we need a complete revolution in the literal sense.

You use the example of France; you do realise that aside from the French Revolution, very little has changed between wars (for example, they've always relied heavily on the Napoleonic Code)
I suppose in the case of the Fifth Republic there was the move to a semi-presidential system but that was more a case of De Gaulle's personal wishes which he was able to bring about through sheer force of character/French fears there was going to be a coup.
Then again, we had about as much change as between the Free State and the Irish republic so we've already had one sort of revolution.

CrankyCod wrote: »

Thats my entire point: I have been all over the world and compared how this place is run, and it is dysfunctional. We subsidise peat-burning power stations and impose a carbon tax, we subsidise bike-to-work scheme and allow acres of hard shoulder to go to waste when it could be used as cycle paths, we close the only rail link to Rosslare and try to promote tourism!
What works here?

None of these fall under the remit of the Constitution. Sure there's room for improvement but every country has mad quirks like the US's massive subsidies for Mohair (a leftover from WWII's need for mohair to make uniforms) or Belgium's endless building of bizarre museums.

CrankyCod wrote: »

Each new article could be voted on individually if that would make the process more constructive. At present there is no incentive to review the fundamentals that underpin the current mess; there hasn't been any real change since the roof fell in two years ago, that's why I believe we need to start from the ground up.

The problem is that would mean all the current rights we enjoy would be out the window, sure we might get them back but there's no guarantee of this.
What'd almost certainly happen is that a mob of special interest groups would dominate proceedings and add in all kinds of weirdness.
The Constitution is meant to protect the State from descending into mob rule.

CrankyCod wrote: »

I take these for granted because they are rights. Rights like contraception, decriminalisation of homosexuality, women's equality only exist in Ireland because of our memebership of the EU, so these came about despite Dev's constitution. Anyway, do you really believe that we have freedom of speech; why is it that nobody in the media mentioned corruption until two lawyers from Belfast offered a reward for info regarding planning fiddles? the libel laws here protect the wealthy and the guilty.

No offense but have you ever read the Constitution? None of the above are mentioned in the Constitution at all (apart from the parts about women being in the home but as I said, a simple amendment can change that. It was found to come under the remit of marital privacy (an unenumerated right) in the McGee case. Plus Irish freedom of speech is fairly decent and out defamation laws are fairly broad.
Problems with the legislature and not the Constitution.

CrankyCod wrote: »

And the reason why that's seen as a good thing? Because we don't trust our public representatives to govern and make decisions on our behalf, which is the definition of a republic. In any case, a referendum is a costly waste of time if it has to be repeated over and over again until we give the "right" answer.

In fairness, you can hardly blame the government for that.
If you have a problem with rerunning referendums then we still wouldn't have legal divorce in this country.
The reason for these referendums is that the Irish people are sovereign; not our representatives.
Allowing the legislature to amend the Constitution just amends into the mess of the Free State Constitution where one branch of the government amended the feck out of it to suit themselves.




Hand outs? Have you had to deal wit hthe bureacrats who administer this generosity? 3 months wiating of r dole payments? Married men gettign 14 euro per week becasue their wives work as cleaners? There would be no need for that patronising treatment of 500,000 people if the place was governed correctly, and I say again, the reason we don't have a functioning state is because the fundamentals are flawed.

There is no point in tinkering with a constitution that was written when the world was overrun with fascism and communism, and written for a conservative, white, male-dominated Catholic rural, peasant country.

We need a complete review, and the constitution is only the start.[/QUOTE]