Abolish Seanad

to99

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

Nothing.

Sierra Oscar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An Coilean

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

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

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

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

Has Enda yet agreed to debate this issue?

An Coilean

nuac wrote: »

Has Enda yet agreed to debate this issue?

nope:(

Sierra Oscar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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).