Referendum on Seanad likely in second half of 2013

DAINGNE

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1010/1224325094472.html

To quote the independent last year

According to the 2011 Oireachtas Commission Budget, the Seanad's 60 senators will cost €4.2m in salaries, and another €2.6m in expenses and allowances this year. The overall cost of the Seanad is estimated at €25m per year.

Waited so long for this government to begin the process of slashing a completely useless € 25 million from State spending, pathetic.

Scofflaw

DAINGNE wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1010/1224325094472.html

To quote the independent last year



Waited so long for this government to begin the process of slashing a completely useless € 25 million from State spending, pathetic.

What, eighteen months? Hardly saint-like levels of patience required.

cordially,
Scofflaw

DAINGNE

Scofflaw wrote: »

What, eighteen months? Hardly saint-like levels of patience required.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Talk of this during the elections in 2011.

Einhard

DAINGNE wrote: »

Waited so long for this government to begin the process of slashing a completely useless € 25 million from State spending, pathetic.

You're getting a bit ahead of yourelf there- there's no guarantee that the public will vote to abolish the Seanad in a referendum. There are plenty of people who see some merit to having an upper chamber.

Also, as Scofflaw pointed out, it's not really that long a period to wait. We're talking about amending the Constitution here, arguably the most important document in that state, so if they have to take some time to get the wording correct, then I'm not going to complain too much.

Fred Cohen

Funny, I seem to remember Kenny saying that it will be held before the end of 2012 in his "You are not to blame" speech.

Brussels Sprout

DAINGNE wrote: »

Talk of this during the elections in 2011.

Regardless, even if they had held the referendum right after the government came in last year there would be no extra saving. That's because even if it is abolished, the Seanad will continue to sit until both houses of the Oireachtas are dissolved prior to the next general election.

Fred Cohen

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Regardless, even if they had held the referendum right after the government came in last year there would be no extra saving. That's because even if it is abolished, the Seanad will continue to sit until both houses of the Oireachtas are dissolved prior to the next general election.

Would that not depend on the wording of the amendment?

Sierra Oscar

Somehow, I don't see it happening. This government is not going to become any more popular within the next two to three years - in fact one would imagine that there could be quite a bumpy ride in store for the government. The prospects for Labour to retain their seats will look particularly ominous. Watch how the reform agenda within FG & Labour will grow over the coming year as backbenchers start to worry about their prospects for getting re-elected.

I would favour radical reform myself in anycase, a reformed Seanad could play an important role in the wider reform of our political system. The abolishment movement is just token politics - if anything the farce that is the current Dáil shows the need for a strong upper chamber with proper legislative and oversight functions.

Manach

Some type of upper chamber that is not tied in with the current fused executive/legislative Dail and dominated by the party whip-system would be an ideal - however given the party interests that prevail currently, this is unlikely to pass.

bijapos

DAINGNE wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1010/1224325094472.html

To quote the independent last year



Waited so long for this government to begin the process of slashing a completely useless € 25 million from State spending, pathetic.

Savings will not amount to €25,000,000 though. If abolished they will save on wages and expenses which currently seems to be ca. €6.8m. Other costs such as civil/public servants wages and pensions will remain. The staff will be moved around other government departments and agencies and the pensions will be paid for decades to come. I agree that this will be phased out over time and a saving will be made but it will not be as immediate as you may think.

Kenny first mooted this abolition in a speech in 2009, promising to have a referendum within 12 months of a new government so this is another election promise that he has let us down on. Anyway, it looks like it will be held before 2014 so maybe it's better late than never.

Either way IMO there are only a couple of options:

1. Have a referendum as proposed on keeping the Seanad as it is or abolishing it. I believe it would be abolished in a populist vote.

2. Make a report promising certain reforms and have the referndum to either maintain the Seanad as it is with the promise of reform or simply abolish it. The danger here is that people will be cyncial and presume that the reforms will not be all carried through as promised, so in effect the people will be voting to maintain a Seanad on the basis of a promise of reform.

3. Hold various referendums and enact laws to reform the Seanad over the next few years in the hope that the people will accept a reformed Upper House. Unlikely to happen IMO.


From Kenny's promise in his 2009 speech we can only presume that we will be voting on option 1 here, and I think the people will vote to abolish it, as for most people it will be seen as getting one back on the government.

Either way the Seanad members past and present have been notoriously slow to get a discussion going on the future of the Seanad and how it should be reformed, an astonishing attitude to take considering the appetite in the public for reform and one which probably ensures their demise.

Fred Cohen

bijapos wrote: »

Savings will not amount to €25,000,000 though. If abolished they will save on wages and expenses which currently seems to be ca. €6.8m. Other costs such as civil/public servants wages and pensions will remain. The staff will be moved around other government departments and agencies and the pensions will be paid for decades to come. I agree that this will be phased out over time and a saving will be made but it will not be as immediate as you may think.

Kenny first mooted this abolition in a speech in 2009, promising to have a referendum within 12 months of a new government so this is another election promise that he has let us down on. Anyway, it looks like it will be held before 2014 so maybe it's better late than never.

Either way IMO there are only a couple of options:

1. Have a referendum as proposed on keeping the Seanad as it is or abolishing it. I believe it would be abolished in a populist vote.

2. Make a report promising certain reforms and have the referndum to either maintain the Seanad as it is with the promise of reform or simply abolish it. The danger here is that people will be cyncial and presume that the reforms will not be all carried through as promised, so in effect the people will be voting to maintain a Seanad on the basis of a promise of reform.

3. Hold various referendums and enact laws to reform the Seanad over the next few years in the hope that the people will accept a reformed Upper House. Unlikely to happen IMO.


From Kenny's promise in his 2009 speech we can only presume that we will be voting on option 1 here, and I think the people will vote to abolish it, as for most people it will be seen as getting one back on the government.

Either way the Seanad members past and present have been notoriously slow to get a discussion going on the future of the Seanad and how it should be reformed, an astonishing attitude to take considering the appetite in the public for reform and one which probably ensures their demise.

Agree with most of that. But why mention 2009 he said it last year that we would have a referendum this year.

Why not hold people to their word?

Dannyboy83

Manach wrote: »

Some type of upper chamber that is not tied in with the current fused executive/legislative Dail and dominated by the party whip-system would be an ideal - however given the party interests that prevail currently, this is unlikely to pass.

Precisely.