Who are the Social Partners and how do we identify these specific individuals.

CDfm

The whole issue of who actually governs Ireland has been nagging at me since last January when John Bruton said

Bruton condemns political system

0 0ShareThisNew
Thursday, 6 January 2011




Former Taoiseach John Bruton has claimed that Ireland is run by civil servants who use TDs and Senators to administer their rule.In a scathing attack on the political system, he also suggested countless corruption tribunals were necessary because Government ministers are not fully answerable to the Dail.



Read more: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/republic-of-ireland/bruton-condemns-political-system-15047569.html#ixzz1bPadKu7e

It recently came up again in something else.

So rather than hypothesise and make it up , and blame the EU & the Troika and everyone else, I wonder is it possible to identify the organisations that make up the social partnership and the individuals who lead them and make decisions.

I have taken the odd sideswipe at David Begg :

(I have pointed out that the likes of David Begg of ICTU and the Central Bank had more influence and real power, probably more than a lot of government ministers in the FF Government up to and including Willie O'Dea and continues to do so to this day. Nobody should object to CAlling the Labour Party the Political Wing of ICTU)

and would like to know if I am being fair.

I suppose the key areas must be determined by their money value.

Now I do not want to do an ideological thing here more definate answers as to who the decision makers are and who they represent.

Bruton is very clear that Ministers are not really in charge and if they are not, well who is ?

RichardAnd

The modern state is bought and sold by corporations, mega-banks and interest groups, elections simply give the masses the illusion of freedom. Allow me to sum this up with a quote from the great Bill Hicks:

I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs. I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking. Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!

But of course, anyone that questions the comfortable facade is a conspiracy theorist.

CDfm

Let me be a bit more specific .

I have run a few threads broaching the theory side - this on history on what is termed the corporate state.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056127781

So if you take the writers in Government & Politics in the 60's 70's etc such as Basil Chubb & Brian Farrell they will have acknowledged the changing role of the civil service into developing policy. The original free state givernment in the 20's ruled & in the 1930's DeV ruled.

A Government Minister today does not do that.

So, I think it would be imteresting to take Bruton's assertion and test it.


Civil Servants have power, such as the awarding of mobile phone licences.

What did John Bruton say in evidence?

Mr. John Bruton served as Taoiseach of Ireland from 1994 to 1997. He previously served as Minister under two Taoisigh, Liam Cosgrave and Garret FitzGerald and held a number of the top posts in the Irish Government, including Minister for Finance (1981–1982 and 1986–1987), and Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism (1983–1986).


Mr. Bruton became leader of Fine Gael in 1990 and served as Taoiseach from 1994 until 1997, leading the Rainbow Coalition government of Fine Gael, Labour Party and Democratic Left. Mr. Bruton was first elected to Dáil Éireann as a TD for Meath in 1969 and served continuously until his retirement from Irish domestic politics in 2004. He is currently European Union Ambassador to the United States and is a former Vice-President of the European People’s Party (EPP).


In his evidence to the Tribunal on Day 279 (23 March 2004), Mr John Bruton stated that he had no reason to doubt the integrity of the civil servants involved in the evaluation process:


“Q. And both then and looking back from where you sit now, you have no reason to question your judgement as to the independence or integrity of the civil service generally and in particular, the civil servants involved in this


A. Absolutely not. On the contrary.”


Mr. Bruton further gave evidence that he had no reason to doubt or question the role played by Mr Michael Lowry in the evaluation process or in relation to the second mobile phone process generally:


“Q. Mr. Bruton, Mr. Lowry will say in evidence that he had absolutely no influence over the work of the Project Group. He will say that he was given very limited information as to its progress, and when informed of the final result, he really just brought that result to Government straight away. Do you have any reason to doubt his position on that?

A. None, no.

Q. Has anything subsequently arisen then, Mr. Bruton, which would cause you in any way to question the role played by the Minister, who you selected for that office, in connection with the award of the GSM licence?

A. No.

Q. And I think you have already answered my colleague Mr. McDonnell that nothing has subsequently arisen to your knowledge, Mr. Bruton, concerning Mr. Lowry or any other aspect of the integrity of the process which would cause you to question it?

A. I have no reason at all to question the process.”


http://www.moriartytribunal.com/evidence-of-government-ministers/what-did-john-bruton-say-in-evidence/

So that is a process and a power.

We could even start with Croke Park and identify the people and personalities.

We could take the appearences in front of Dail Commitees on issues.

Appointments to state boards, in whose gift are they and who chooses the names.

The Central Bank ,for instance (my favorite) is another real organisation with real power.

I think it could be fun to look at as the Irish system seems incredibly labrynthine for such a small country.

Geuze

Social Partnership was facilitated by the Dept of the Taoiseach:

http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/eng/


Here is the Social Partnership section of their website:

http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/eng/Department_of_the_Taoiseach/Policy_Sections/Social_Partnership/


Here is the most recent agreement, now frozen?

http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/eng/Publications/Publications_Archive/Publications_2006/Towards2016PartnershipAgreement.pdf

n97 mini

Is Social Partners not another name for ICTU?

Godge

OP, this could be an interesting thread. However, I would like some clarity on the questions you are asking.

Are you seeking to identify the social partners? That is an easy question and the links on the Department of the Taoiseach website will give you the answer to that.

On the other hand, is the more interesting question you are asking revolve around who is really running the country. Is it the politicians, civil servants, trade unionists, political advisers, spin doctors etc.? That is a more difficult question and before giving a view and taking time to think it through I would like to be clear on where you want to go with this.

Lumbo

n97 mini wrote: »

Is Social Partners not another name for ICTU?

IBEC wouldn't be very happy to hear you saying that.

CDfm

Thanks

Social Partnership Agreements

The Department of the Taoiseach is responsible for the overall negotiations and implementation of the Social Partnership Agreements, of which there have been seven to date including the current agreement:

• Towards 2016, Ten-Year Framework Social Partnership Agreement 2006-2015

Each of the seven Social Partnership Agreements - which are focused principally on incomes, fiscal, social, economic and competitiveness policies – have been negotiated between the Government and the social partners. The latter are organised into four pillars as follows:

• Trade Union Pillar
• Business and Employer Pillar
• Farming Pillar
• Community and Voluntary Pillar (included for first time in negotiations on Partnership 2000)

The negotiations on each of the Social Partnership Agreements were preceded by the production of Frameworks agreed under the auspices of the:
National Economic and Social Council (NESC)
Implementation of the Agreements is achieved primarily through the production of Quarterly Progress Reports.
Contact:

Social Partnership - socialpartnership@taoiseach.gov.ie

What are the substantive terms ?

So each of these has an agreement and who negotiates them and who elects the representatives.

So there is something in what Bruton says about things not being answerable to the Oireachtas.

If they are deciding on legislation and policy why do they not sit like a second house in the Senate for instance.

CDfm

Godge wrote: »

OP, this could be an interesting thread. However, I would like some clarity on the questions you are asking.

1. Identities

Are you seeking to identify the social partners? That is an easy question and the links on the Department of the Taoiseach website will give you the answer to that.

2. What decisions are made by them

On the other hand, is the more interesting question you are asking revolve around who is really running the country. Is it the politicians, civil servants, trade unionists, political advisers, spin doctors etc.? That is a more difficult question and before giving a view and taking time to think it through I would like to be clear on where you want to go with this.

Now I could not see any identities on the Taoiseachs website.

Also, the inference of Brutons Statement is that the decisions/negitiations are handled by the Civil Servants and they are put to the Oireachtas as a fait accompli and politicians have no power at all.

Is the Constitutional nature of our government woolie ?

And ,of course, who do the sp's represent and who may not be represented.

Godge

CDfm wrote: »

Now I could not see any identities on the Taoiseachs website.

Also, the inference of Brutons Statement is that the decisions/negitiations are handled by the Civil Servants and they are put to the Oireachtas as a fait accompli and politicians have no power at all.

Is the Constitutional nature of our government woolie ?

And ,of course, who do the sp's represent and who may not be represented.

My point is that the process of decision-making in government is much more complicated than that.

The Bruton coalition (ironically given your op), which introduced the special adviser system, is responsible for some of that. Before each Cabinet meeting, (generally the afternoon/evening or early morning before), the group of special advisers (one for every minister) meets. Their role is extremely important in the process of decision-making.

The Social Partnership system, which dates back to Haughey's first government, is a mish-mash of influences. There are a number of groups on it who have little power in the real decision-making but who were bought off with little arrangements over the years (think of the social side of it and look at some of the organisations involved and wonder how and why their funding increased so much over the years) while having little real influence on policy other than on areas that mattered.

With the Social Partnership broad scope, the trade unions, certain people in them, carried great influence. Similarly, IBEC had instant access to Ministers.

Then there are the civil servants who drive a lot of the policy-making as Bruton points out. Senior civil servants in Taoiseach's and Finance have had great influence, but other senior civil servants from other Departments also gained influence through having worked with a number of FF Ministers over the years. To illustrate my point, have a look at the list of Secretaries General, say next May and compare to when the current Government took office, in less than 18 months there will have been quite a purge. Other public servants in the HSE, other large state bodies or who have good links to a Minister can have strong influence.

Another aspect of Irish public policy decision-making is the influence of the media. The number of times a Minister will come into his office on a Monday morning and want to do something about an issue that popped up in the media over the weekend. Without the media focus, nothing may have happened. The power of this is illustrated by the media monitoring group Bertie set up while in power.

Finally, particularly in governments with small majoritys, dependent on independents, public policy decisions were made because of the views of some backbencher (think Healy-Rae or Michael Lowry).

So for any one policy decision over the last twenty-five to thirty years, some or all of the above will have interacted to produce the resultant policy. Some of the policies will have been driven by one of the above, some will have resulted from careful interaction. Particularly in the Bertie years, he was good at giving everyone a little, so he could point out to IBEC, what are you giving out about benchmarking for, didn't you get the changes in business tax you wanted etc. etc.

To sum up, you can identify in the case of some decisions who was responsible (David McWilliams, Lenihan and the bankers for the bank guarantee) to a greater or lesser extent but some of the big players in decisions over the years (the trade unions) would have had no input into that decision even though their influence was extensive.

Sorry for the long answer but just trying to contextualise your question.

jmayo

If you are not old enough to remember Yes Minister or Yes Prime Minister then check it out on DVD or if replaying on Dave.

It may be set in 1970s/1980s Britain, but since Ireland inherited it's systems from Britain and usually lags or copies Britain in some ways there is a good chance that similar system manipulations take place here to some extent.
We just won't have the very fancy accents or titles.

The series was so true to form that thatcher and other high ranking politicans reckoned they were getting tipped off by insider.

And lo and behold they were right.
Oh and the incident where they were drinking booze at the embassy function for Islamic leaders in the Islamic country is actually based on something that really happened in Pakistan.
Truth is often funnier than fiction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmOvEwtDycs

Godge

jmayo wrote: »

If you are not old enough to remember Yes Minister or Yes Prime Minister then check it out on DVD or if replaying on Dave.

It may be set in 1970s/1980s Britain, but since Ireland inherited it's systems from Britain and usually lags or copies Britain in some ways there is a good chance that similar system manipulations take place here to some extent.
We just won't have the very fancy accents or titles.

The series was so true to form that thatcher and other high ranking politicans reckoned they were getting tipped off by insider.

And lo and behold they were right.
Oh and the incident where they were drinking booze at the embassy function for Islamic leaders in the Islamic country is actually based on something that really happened in Pakistan.
Truth is often funnier than fiction.

I agree that these series were excellent at portraying the decision-making process even if it was at the limit in order to maintain the humour.

CDfm

We are very complicated for such a small country

Godge wrote: »

My point is that the process of decision-making in government is much more complicated than that.

...........

1. this might be institution

To sum up, you can identify in the case of some decisions who was responsible (David McWilliams, Lenihan and the bankers for the bank guarantee)
to a greater or lesser extent but

2.what policies

some of the big players in decisions over the years (the trade unions) would have had no input into that decision even though their influence was extensive.

Sorry for the long answer but just trying to contextualise your question.

Ok - lets try to contextualise the now. and put the history to one side

On 1 - the event was the failure of the banking system and regulator - the CB was independent so

On 2 -if the influence means - strike action etc - this is the organisation - this is its powerbase and this is its weapon.

Then you might have civil service departments who operate thru clientism with a self appointed constituency

http://barbarascully.blogspot.com/2011/07/national-some-womens-council.html

a controvercial pick - and i could have gone the Arts

Now I am not trying to debate the why just establish the who and what policies.

ardmacha

Social partnership has its pros and cons, but is at least a public agreement and not achieved behind the scenes. The social partnership process of the 00s was badly served by the parameters it operated within. Those parameters were that there was a boom and that there wasn't a problem with its sustainability. Against that background people made proposals that were not objectionable in themselves. If the technical parameters had been there is the appearance of a boom but that this is only because of borrowings of x, then the social partnership process would have worked within that.

CDfm

I wasnt living in ireland when this evolved so can you explain the workings to me of the Social Partnership Agreements and how the Partners get their mandates.

MadsL

One recent strand of the Social Partnership has been allowing the Environmental Pillar to join the Partnership. (possibly a sop to try and disguise lack of ratification of the Aarhus Convention)

The Env Pillar is made up of;

An Taisce
Bat Conservation Ireland
BirdWatch Ireland
CELT
Irish Seal Sanctuary
Coastwatch
Coomhola Salmon Trust
Crann
ECO-UNESCO
FEASTA
Forest Friends
Friends of the Earth
Gluaiseacht
The Organic Centre GRIAN
Hedge Laying Association of Ireland
Irish Doctors’ Environmental Association
Irish Natural Forestry Foundation
Irish Peatland Conservation Council
Irish Seed Savers Association
Irish Whale & Dolphin Group
Irish Wildlife Trust
Just Forests
Sonairte
Sustainable Ireland
VOICE
Zero Waste Alliance

The Pillar's mandate is to lobby govt through submissions and to participate in the Social Partnership as the voice of the Natural and Built Environment.

It is probably the most transparent and democratic strand. Anyone can join those associations and get involved in submissions/lobbying etc.

http://environmentalpillar.ie

CDfm

Thats some lot of interest groups and I wonder what the spend is.

It is not to far to say that it is the Civil Service who make the payments and decisions and exercise a fair degree of patronage themselves.

I am interested in history and the Social Partnership Model always brings to mind 17 th Century Sweden and the government system of King Gustav Adophus .


http://books.google.ie/books?id=DOVwWn-Oq2wC&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=gustavus+adolphus+and+the+four+estates&source=bl&ots=CNs5fJcU2E&sig=XXuWJYyzRKCAKEk8bG_gt_S6Da4&hl=en&ei=ThijTo7oHsyxhAf8zOHbBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=gustavus%20adolphus%20and%20the%20four%20estates&f=false

MadsL

CDfm wrote: »

Thats some lot of interest groups and I wonder what the spend is.

Spend? I think all of them are charities. I think there is some seed funding for specific projects and for expenses for Irish Environmental Network.

CDfm

MadsL wrote: »

Spend? I think all of them are charities. I think there is some seed funding for specific projects and for expenses for Irish Environmental Network.

Charitable status bestows tax free status and tax relief for donors.

I just wonder if grant aid is paid to any .

The reason for asking is to assess the value of clientism.

MadsL

An Taisce get grant aid for education unit activities (Green School, Blue Flag, Green Homes etc.) - the rest is charitable contributions and membership.

Not sure what grant aid the rest get...

As far as clientism is concerned An Taisce probably have the most to lose in terms of funding, but are probably the most vocal and active group in terms of policy lobbying.

GreenLady

MadsL wrote: »

An Taisce get grant aid for education unit activities (Green School, Blue Flag, Green Homes etc.) - the rest is charitable contributions and membership.

Not sure what grant aid the rest get...

Members of the IEN get funding from the Dept Env via the IEN that averages about 10,000 a year depending on how much work they've done in the previous year towards things like environmental education, contributions to national and EU policy, conservation at local and national level, and a whole host of things that government is required to do under its international obligations - in other words it provides a cut price way for government to meet its obligations. Small amounts of other grant funding are paid towards running events etc just as they are to any other charity. Doubt if it works out at as much as a euro an hour. Certainly doesn't cover the costs for environmental pillar activities I've been involved with.

CDfm

That is not really the point of the thread.

When I started it , it was who were the actual decision makers in Ireland who make crucial economic decision's.

Who made these decisions and why can't they be debated in the Oireachtas.

A few months ago this happened when the ECB came to down.

OUR overpaid bureaucrats have let us down again. The EU is bankrolling our budget deficit of €18bn a year, so that pay in the public sector can be twice what it should be. Jorg Asmussen, who's on the executive board of the ECB, said that pay in the Irish public sector rose by 90 per cent in the 10 years to 2010. This happened nowhere else in Europe, bar Greece.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/james-fitzsimons-no-more-acting-like-infants-with-the-ecb-3081124.html

Time has moved on and our decision making abilities are being taken away from us.

And this guy has become one of our Social Partners.

It’s the Economy, Dummkopf!


With Greece and Ireland in economic shreds, while Portugal, Spain, and perhaps even Italy head south, only one nation can save Europe from financial Armageddon: a highly reluctant Germany. The ironies—like the fact that bankers from Düsseldorf were the ultimate patsies in Wall Street’s con game—pile up quickly as Michael Lewis investigates German attitudes toward money, excrement, and the country’s Nazi past, all of which help explain its peculiar new status.


By Michael LewisPhotograph by Jonas Fredwall Karlsson

WURST-CASE SCENARIO German deputy finance minister Jörg Asmussen, at a vestige of the Berlin Wall.


http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2011/09/europe-201109

Now it is fine to say that we have an elected parliament but they hardly have the power to do anything.

Since the Vanity Fair article Joerg joined the ECB

Debt cut prospect played down

Jorg Asmussen told a think tank audience in Dublin that by 2007 the Irish economy had become 'unfit and overweight'. Photograph: Photograph: Alan Betson/The Irish Times

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0413/breaking10.html







One of the most senior members of the European Central Bank yesterday laid much of the blame for Ireland’s economic difficulties on domestic factors and played down the prospects of an easing of the State’s debt burden.
Jörg Asmussen – one of six members of the ECB’s executive board – bluntly told a think tank audience in Dublin that by 2007 the Irish economy had become “unfit and overweight”.
Excessive pay increases in the public and private sectors, poor supervision of banks and overspending by governments had all contributed to weakening the economy, he said.

I don't think Joerg really cares where the cuts come from.


In our situation, we can only vote out politicians, who indeed are just one part of the decision making part of our system and who say how we are run.


So who can possibly be making the decisions and why are they not accountable.



On Thurdsay we are having a referendum , the ultimate democratic decision making process, yet many of our decisions are made behind closed door's in a way that the german's would find unthinkable. Remember how even their opposition parties were given our budget.


Some democracy.

GreenLady

I answered a specific question about what the organisations of the IEN got in cash terms as a reward for participating in social partnership.

but on the issue of why our elected representatives don't have more say, its mostly because they dont' have the guts to make the committee system work. We had a situation last week when a committee was in a position to force answers to some questions (about RTE) and the members of the committee wasted the whole of the time they had posturing for the cameras so that the substance was never reached. And this is pretty typical of the behaviour of members of both houses. Without changing it at all our system has the potential to be very effective - but only if it elects men and women, not lap dogs

CDfm

GreenLady wrote: »

but only if it elects men and women, not lap dogs

We elect , the system doesn't .

Even here , we have the power to discuss an issue and we don't so as
Joerg Asmussen says , we are responsible.

Belfast

n97 mini wrote: »

Is Social Partners not another name for ICTU?

No.
There are a lot more special interest groups that just the trade unions.

CDfm

Belfast wrote: »

No.
There are a lot more special interest groups that just the trade unions.

There are though at the moment they are the ones who are flexing their muscles.

Remember this

Taoiseach Enda Kenny has rejected reports that details of next month's Budget, including a planned hike in the VAT rate, were shown to German officials yesterday.
Mr Kenny met chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin yesterday after which reports emerged that the Irish Government was planning raise the top rate of VAT by 2 per cent to 23 per cent.
According to documents presented to a Bundestag budget committee, the measure would generate an additional €670 million for the Government.
Opposition parties rounded on the Government today accusing it a "staggering breach of faith", with suggestions that the German chancellor was now "pulling the strings".
Asked how the document ended up in the Bundestag, Mr Kenny said: “I have no idea.”
Reuters news agency reported seeing a document presented to the German parliament’s budget committee yesterday which showed Irish budget plans, including a 2 per cent increase in the top VAT rate to 23 per cent to generate €670 million.
It is understood papers were dated November 2011 but not signed by the Minister for Finane Michael Noonan.
Mr Kenny, at his first official meeting with Northern Ireland‘s First and Deputy First ministers Peter Robinson and Martin McGuinness in Belfast, could not explain how or why the lower house of the German parliament was examining Ireland's budget options.
“Let me confirm something to you, the Cabinet have made no decision in regard to the Budget. It is on December 6th,” he said.


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/1117/breaking50.html

Is it because other parliaments actually discuss things in parliament and make decisions in parliament.

Bertie Ahern made deals behind closed doors, or did he .? In truth, we do not really know who did what as it is all behind closed doors .

GreenLady

CDfm wrote: »

We elect , the system doesn't .

Even here , we have the power to discuss an issue and we don't so as
Joerg Asmussen says , we are responsible.

True - so maybe we need to demand that the people we elect spend more time on national issues and less on our local potholes. And go along to their clinics and talk about issues not clientelism

Opinion polls show that most people in ireland think the politicians they actually know, as opposed to the ones they only hear about through the media, are decent hard working honest men and women, so lets get them working

CDfm

There is a huge amount of hocus pocus about Irish politics and if boards is a yardstick ignorance about how the country is run.

It is run on almost Presidential lines thru the whip system so why does the system not reflect that.

Currently, our elected representatives have no power.

jimmycrackcorm

CDfm wrote: »

There is a huge amount of hocus pocus about Irish politics and if boards is a yardstick ignorance about how the country is run.

It is run on almost Presidential lines thru the whip system so why does the system not reflect that.

Currently, our elected representatives have no power.

No smoking in pubs law says otherwise.

Dannyboy83

ardmacha wrote: »

Social partnership has its pros and cons, but is at least a public agreement and not achieved behind the scenes. The social partnership process of the 00s was badly served by the parameters it operated within. Those parameters were that there was a boom and that there wasn't a problem with its sustainability. Against that background people made proposals that were not objectionable in themselves. If the technical parameters had been there is the appearance of a boom but that this is only because of borrowings of x, then the social partnership process would have worked within that.

I was under the impression, that this form of Social Partnership, of the 00s, came into being as a result of the boom, rather than a process running concurrently using poor parameters.

Even the names of the programs indicate a departure:

1987-1990 - Programme for National Recovery (PNR)
1991-1994 - Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP)
1994-1996 - Programme for Competitiveness and Work (PCW)
1997-2000 - Partnership 2000, for Inclusion, Employment and Competitiveness (P2000)
============================
x
=============================
2000-2003 - Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF)
2003-2005 - Sustaining Progress (SP)

CDfm

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I was under the impression, that this form of Social Partnership, of the 00s, came into being as a result of the boom, rather than a process running concurrently using poor parameters.

I was under the impression we elected TD's and Senators and we don't elect these guys.

2000-2003 - Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF) Lots of Lies
2003-2005 - Sustaining Progress (SP)Mad Spending Spree

These guys don't get elected and are not in the constitution and are not accountable.

We all know this has led to the undermining of our democracy and the undermining of our sovereignty.

barneystinson

CDfm wrote: »

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I was under the impression, that this form of Social Partnership, of the 00s, came into being as a result of the boom, rather than a process running concurrently using poor parameters.

I was under the impression we elected TD's and Senators and we don't elect these guys.

2000-2003 - Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF) Lots of Lies
2003-2005 - Sustaining Progress (SP)Mad Spending Spree

These guys don't get elected and are not in the constitution and are not accountable.

We all know this has led to the undermining of our democracy and the undermining of our sovereignty.

Since no-one, elected or otherwise, is ever held accountable in this country, I don't really see where you're going with this TBH...

Who do you think should make decisions? Elected (and therefore accountable) politicians who may have very little relevant expertise in the area of their portfolio?

Solair

Ireland adopted a model of public policy formation known as neocorporatism. We generally branded this as 'social partnership.

In a liberal democracy, I think that lobbying and influence on public policy making should be something that is open, transparent with equal access to power for any group who wishes to lobby.

Instead, in Ireland what we have is a system where a group of state anointed "social partners" are given direct access to public policy decision making and formation, without democratic oversight.

This role is something that should be carried out by the legislature i.e. the Dail and Seanad, not a group of non-elected 'social partners'.

In my opinion, Ireland has had quite a poor grasp of what a liberal democracy is. This has led to serious corruption over the years and very nasty abuses of power.

If we look back to the early days of the state, right up until the 1970s we had not only a neo-corporatist state, but one where the Catholic Church was incorporated into the state and had direct access to public policy formation, censorship of the media and publications, the education system, the health system, the criminal justice system, and even went around locking up women who were pregnant outside marriage.

That led to serious social problems, abuse of children and adults in institutions they should never have been in in the first place, stagnation and stifling of debate, etc etc etc..

Quite honestly, I think Ireland needs to have serious public debate about how we actually want to run the country.

A second Republic might not be a bad idea i.e. new constitution with a radical overhaul of how the Dail, Seanad and Executive do business. Ending corporatism, introducing open, liberal lobbying, regulation of lobbyists and generally just generally re-booting the state.

We have to stop outsourcing policy formation to 3rd parties like endless QANGOs and social partners etc etc and get the Dail and Seanad actually working as proper legislatures!

CDfm

barneystinson wrote: »

Since no-one, elected or otherwise, is ever held accountable in this country, I don't really see where you're going with this TBH...

Well posting about it here is a start.

How many times during the election did we have people who criticized Fine Gael or Labour branded Fianna Fail right here on boards.

Mick Wallace is more of a parliamentarian than the TD's in political parties. That is not to say that he is great and should run the country but that they are poor.

Solair wrote: »

Quite honestly, I think Ireland needs to have serious public debate about how we actually want to run the country.

Totally agree

CDfm

barneystinson wrote: »

Since no-one, elected or otherwise, is ever held accountable in this country, I don't really see where you're going with this TBH...

Who do you think should make decisions? Elected (and therefore accountable) politicians who may have very little relevant expertise in the area of their portfolio?

What are you suggesting.

The bailout meant that neither the elected or unelected had a bulls notion of what was going on.

Happy Referendum to Ya

barneystinson

CDfm wrote: »

barneystinson wrote: »

Since no-one, elected or otherwise, is ever held accountable in this country, I don't really see where you're going with this TBH...

Who do you think should make decisions? Elected (and therefore accountable) politicians who may have very little relevant expertise in the area of their portfolio?

What are you suggesting.

The bailout meant that neither the elected or unelected had a bulls notion of what was going on.

Happy Referendum to Ya

Answering my question with a question... :rolleyes:

I'm suggesting, quite simply, that decisions should be made by those best qualified / equipped to make those decisions.