Constitutional Convention

RangeR

Couldn't think of another place top post this and couldn't see another thread on the subject.

Anyone willing to say if they are one of the 66? I'm starting to hear a little chatter on the media airwaves over the past while.

Scofflaw

Needs somewhat more explanation! From the IT:

Next Saturday the members of the constitutional convention will meet in Dublin. The convention comes out of the last general election campaign, in which all parties committed to reforming the political system.

Potentially one of the most interesting reforms is the way in which future changes to the Constitution might be proposed. Whereas normally the government of the day proposes changes put to the people in a referendum, the convention gives some power of proposal to an assembly of 66 ordinary citizens and 33 elected politicians (from the Oireachtas and the Northern Ireland Assembly).

In setting up the convention the Oireachtas passed a motion to allow it to look at eight topics, including the provision for same-sex marriage, the position of women in Irish society, a number of changes to the political system and removing the offence of blasphemy.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1126/1224327094228.html

Hence "one of the 66".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Cookie_Monster

why are politicians from the north being given a say in our constitution? Seems a bit off, unless one of the goals is the adoption of it by Northern Ireland?

expectationlost

it will be so ineffectual it hard to get upset over

anyway the point of randyr post is that 66 public members can be anonymous http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1115/1224326607475.html

i don't know if i'd like to picked and then have my life scrutinised by the papers...

silenceisfoo

I was one of the 66 but I pulled out last week after. When I was asked to do it the whole idea was that is was anonymous and we could state our opinion. Then it suddenly became that the entire thing was going to be shown on the internet if you spoke and your name and details would be placed in the paper.
I know people are going on about who are these people all the time and they are probably political appointees and friends of politicians. I am neither. In July I was asked to fill out a survey by B and A. The guy told me they were having problems getting people to sign up as people wouldn't commit a weekend a month for one year.
Everyone is saying that they need to be named in order for the Convention to be transparent. However, it was originally stated as more of an informed survey of the nation.
Having read comments and rather horrible stuff about the individuals I am glad I pulled out. The 66 are getting a bad name because of the 33 politicians. The difference is the 66 are not paid for what they are doing and they are being villainised to an extent in the media.

Stabshauptmann

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

why are politicians from the north being given a say in our constitution? Seems a bit off, unless one of the goals is the adoption of it by Northern Ireland?

Obviously the people who set up the convention had a greater appreciation of Irish history, the current political landscape, and were less narrow minded than you.

Sand

silenceisfoo wrote: »

I was one of the 66 but I pulled out last week after. When I was asked to do it the whole idea was that is was anonymous and we could state our opinion. Then it suddenly became that the entire thing was going to be shown on the internet if you spoke and your name and details would be placed in the paper.
I know people are going on about who are these people all the time and they are probably political appointees and friends of politicians. I am neither. In July I was asked to fill out a survey by B and A. The guy told me they were having problems getting people to sign up as people wouldn't commit a weekend a month for one year.
Everyone is saying that they need to be named in order for the Convention to be transparent. However, it was originally stated as more of an informed survey of the nation.
Having read comments and rather horrible stuff about the individuals I am glad I pulled out. The 66 are getting a bad name because of the 33 politicians. The difference is the 66 are not paid for what they are doing and they are being villainised to an extent in the media.

The constitution is the important basic document of our state, upon which every other institution, law and procedure is based. Being involved - even in a slight way - with drafting its reform *is* a public role. If you're not comfortable with taking on that public role, then you did the right thing excusing yourself from it.

For my own part, I find the secrecy around who is involved in the convention to be deeply disturbing. I couldn't care less about the personal lives of the people involved, but it bothers me that they're too ashamed to stand over their own actions in the convention even in a large group where they could disavow personal responsibility. Secrecy in policy-making has always led to bad outcomes in Ireland. The only saving grace for this convention may be that its ineffectual as well as badly conceived - other than removing the ridiculous blasphemy ban its difficult to see what they can do that's useful, but a lot they can do that's harmful.

The real shame will be that FG will think "Well, that's the reform sorted out - now back to dividing up the spoils of victory!"

hmmm

The lack of publicity and information is a huge mistake here. These people are going to recommend fundamental changes to the Constitution, and the general public are mostly unaware of the Convention. This thread should have a 1000 posts on it by now.

silenceisfoo

I don't think their power is very great to be honest. They vote on a particular issue which is then written up in a report and sent to the Government who then make a decision whether to proceed with a referendum or not. Ultimately it is still coming down to the Government making the decisions. Personally I think the convention is an exercise in futility.

hmmm

silenceisfoo wrote: »

Personally I think the convention is an exercise in futility.

It will be if it is undersold. We could have easily used a process like this
http://gigaom.com/europe/icelanders-approve-their-crowdsourced-constitution/

RangeR

I am one of the 66. I'm looking for your vote.

Cookie_Monster

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

Obviously the people who set up the convention had a greater appreciation of Irish history, the current political landscape, and were less narrow minded than you.

like it or not the north is a separate state and should not have an input into our constitution no more than England of France or anyone else.

Esel

Saw Gerry was wearing shades when being interviewed on the RTE news last night. Maybe his eyesight is failing (like his memory)?

Is there public access to the convention? If not, there should be.

RangeR

Esel wrote: »

Is there public access to the convention? If not, there should be.

All plenary sessions are streamed live on www.constitution.ie. Actual round table talks are in private.

expectationlost

anyway they say that... Agreement to disclose names and general geographic area - 66 citizen members. All contact should be via the Constutional Convention

expectationlost

silenceisfoo wrote: »

I was one of the 66 but I pulled out last week after. When I was asked to do it the whole idea was that is was anonymous and we could state our opinion. Then it suddenly became that the entire thing was going to be shown on the internet if you spoke and your name and details would be placed in the paper.
I know people are going on about who are these people all the time and they are probably political appointees and friends of politicians. I am neither. In July I was asked to fill out a survey by B and A. The guy told me they were having problems getting people to sign up as people wouldn't commit a weekend a month for one year.
Everyone is saying that they need to be named in order for the Convention to be transparent. However, it was originally stated as more of an informed survey of the nation.
Having read comments and rather horrible stuff about the individuals I am glad I pulled out. The 66 are getting a bad name because of the 33 politicians. The difference is the 66 are not paid for what they are doing and they are being villainised to an extent in the media.

senator susan o'keefe said she glad to one of 100 citizens at the convention

RangeR

expectationlost wrote: »

anyway they say that... Agreement to disclose names and general geographic area - 66 citizen members. All contact should be via the Constutional Convention

We, the 66, have agreed to be identified in general terms. This was our choice. We have a Constitutional RIGHT to privacy. You have no RIGHT to know who we are. Having said that, it was agreed at our first meeting that it may calm some pubic concerns if our general details were released. We were asked to comply, not ordered.

For example, my Name is Keith Burke. I'm in my 30's and I live in Co. Kildare. That's it. That's all we agreed to. We our doing are civic duty. We are not public figures. I also know it's not hard to find my home address. But I guarantee you, if ANYONE harasses me at home or work [or attempts to make me more identifiable], I will inflict the full measures of the law on them. That, and / or I'll end this process of debate.

Just think about it, how would YOU feel if your address was published?


Secondly, as far as the communication to be directed to the Constitutional Convention, namely the Chairperson. The main aim of the initial assertion is that interested parties [read lobby groups] are NOT to harass the 66 citizens but rather put their questions / comments to Mr Tom Arnold. He will then bring them to us. Failure to comply will mean that they will be excluded from the process that they are lobbying for. If anyone wants to talk to any or all of the 66, then they should approach the convention and request it. Go from there.

I have decided to waive my anonymity and actually allow the members of boards.ie to have a say in the process. Don't abuse it [directed generally].

RangeR

expectationlost wrote: »

senator susan o'keefe said she glad to one of 99 citizens at the convention

That's a poxymoron if I ever heard one

Of course she is a citizen. But she is also classed as a politician. One of the 33.

I'm curious, which one of the 100 is she saying ISN'T a citizen?

expectationlost

RangeR wrote: »

That's a poxymoron if I ever heard one

Of course she is a citizen. But she is also classed as a politician. One of the 33.

I'm curious, which one of the 100 is she saying ISN'T a citizen?

sorry, being there with the other 99 citizens is how she phrased it

course she was put into the seanad by other politicians

Sand

expectationlost wrote: »

anyway they say that... Agreement to disclose names and general geographic area - 66 citizen members. All contact should be via the Constutional Convention

That seems entirely agreeable and reassuring - I agree that anyone trying to target individuals to communicate with and influence them should be dealt with to the full force of the law. They're supposed to be a general sampling of the population - not water carriers for various lobby groups.

silenceisfoo

The idea that you could be identified really got to me if I am to be honest. I have a very unique name. I once received a letter from abroad with my:
Full Name,
Town,
Ireland.
Really odd how it arrived in my house. I have a background in law and was interested in doing it but thought the stress would get to me as I am a very reserved person.

It will be interesting to see the citizens' recommendations and opinions. There is a danger in the plenary sessions that they would be hijacked by politicians looking to grand stand.

JDOF

RangeR wrote: »

We, the 66, have agreed to be identified in general terms. This was our choice. We have a Constitutional RIGHT to privacy. You have no RIGHT to know who we are. Having said that, it was agreed at our first meeting that it may calm some pubic concerns if our general details were released. We were asked to comply, not ordered.

For example, my Name is Keith Burke. I'm in my 30's and I live in Co. Kildare. That's it. That's all we agreed to. We our doing are civic duty. We are not public figures. I also know it's not hard to find my home address. But I guarantee you, if ANYONE harasses me at home or work [or attempts to make me more identifiable], I will inflict the full measures of the law on them. That, and / or I'll end this process of debate.

Just think about it, how would YOU feel if your address was published?

Secondly, as far as the communication to be directed to the Constitutional Convention, namely the Chairperson. The main aim of the initial assertion is that interested parties [read lobby groups] are NOT to harass the 66 citizens but rather put their questions / comments to Mr Tom Arnold. He will then bring them to us. Failure to comply will mean that they will be excluded from the process that they are lobbying for. If anyone wants to talk to any or all of the 66, then they should approach the convention and request it. Go from there.

I have decided to waive my anonymity and actually allow the members of boards.ie to have a say in the process. Don't abuse it [directed generally].

Keith,

I understand that you had no role in dreaming up this idea of a constitutional convention, but you and the other 65 unelected people in the convention simply have no electoral mandate from anybody. The idea that unelected people have a role in the reform of our most basic laws is completely undemocratic.

For better or worse the politicians in the Dail put their names forward, were subject to public scrutiny & debate and were elected in a competitive election. You and the other 65 unelected delegates have done none of those things.

The reform of the constitution is unquestionably political, if you don't agree with this than I don't think you truly know what politics is.

The Irish people know nothing about the character, political opinions or potential conflicts of interest of any of the 66 unelected members. I am sorry but if you are going to have a say in the formation of the most basic laws in my country we deserve to know more than just your name.

hmmm

JDOF wrote: »

you and the other 65 unelected people in the convention simply have no electoral mandate from anybody. The idea that unelected people have a role in the reform of our most basic laws is completely undemocratic.

How else do you propose that a fundamental review of the constitution takes place? Let's say you had 100 members composed entirely of elected representatives - do you think that they are likely to put forward proposals for radical reform of the systems by which they were elected? At best it's a recipe for political stagnation, at worst it would be a recipe for creating an entrenched political elite.

And besides, the Convention has no power to make actual changes. At best they can offer options to the government of the day, who then can decide whether or not they are willing to put the option to a referendum. The Convention has moral authority and no more.

JDOF

hmmm wrote: »

How else do you propose that a fundamental review of the constitution takes place? Let's say you had 100 members composed entirely of elected representatives - do you think that they are likely to put forward proposals for radical reform of the systems by which they were elected? At best it's a recipe for political stagnation, at worst it would be a recipe for creating an entrenched political elite.

And besides, the Convention has no power to make actual changes. At best they can offer options to the government of the day, who then can decide whether or not they are willing to put the option to a referendum. The Convention has moral authority and no more.

This "entrenched political elite" that you're talking about are the people that we elected. They didn't land in on us from Mars, we voted for them. In a democracy we get the politicians that we deserve.

Why can't our elected politicians come up with their own suggestions? Convention is a glorified focus group posing as real reform.

RangeR

I believe you have a basic misunderstanding of the role of the convention. However, nice first post and welcome to boards.

Let me answer your points, one by one.

JDOF wrote: »

I understand that you had no role in dreaming up this idea of a constitutional convention, but you and the other 65 unelected people in the convention simply have no electoral mandate from anybody. The idea that unelected people have a role in the reform of our most basic laws is completely undemocratic.

I, as I'm sure the rest of the 66 are, am well aware that I have no electoral mandate. I have no intent [within the convention] of changing any laws. What I DO intend, as a representative of our country is to propose changes to our law makers, so that they can decide whether to bring them to the entire nation. Make no mistake, the constitution is OUR constitution. It's mine, it's yours, it's everyone's. It cannot be changed by 66 selected citizens. Any change MUST go to referendum.

I have decided to forgo with my general anonymity and approach boards.ie in the hope of allowing AS MANY CITIZENS AS POSSIBLE have their say, in the recommendations that I make [as part of the convention] to government.

JDOF wrote: »

For better or worse the politicians in the Dail put their names forward, were subject to public scrutiny & debate and were elected in a competitive election. You and the other 65 unelected delegates have done none of those things.

I have answered this already. I question the need to identify ourselves. We are ordinary citizens with our own fears and reservations. Having said that, we have agreed to allow our general information to be identified. The very fact that there are unelected representatives, I believe, is to get away from party politics. As I alluded to here or the other thread [there are only two], party politics was starting to kick off behind closed doors on Saturday. Not to any big extent but you could put it down to they are used to public speaking. We 66 aren't. We will find our feet VERY quickly and learn to speak up for ourselves. There is a learning curve and that is also one of the reasons I came to boards with this.

JDOF wrote: »

The reform of the constitution is unquestionably political, if you don't agree with this than I don't think you truly know what politics is.

Maybe. I'm no expert in the field. This also allows me to think outside of the box and not be tied to "traditional politics".

JDOF wrote: »

The Irish people know nothing about the character, political opinions or potential conflicts of interest of any of the 66 unelected members. I am sorry but if you are going to have a say in the formation of the most basic laws in my country we deserve to know more than just your name.

I would surmise that this is the crux of the problem. I'm not trying to directly change any laws or the constitution. You, nor any citizen, need to know my character. All you need to know is that, as a group, we are representative of the population. We were randomly chosen. It's not as if Enda Kenny said "Right, I want 40 'citizens' from my constituency to be on the panel or else". The government had no part to play in this.

In fact, on Saturday, I spoke to a major politician from one of the big two. I could tell within seconds that he did not like me at all. I could see the grimace in his face when I spoke up for myself. The conversation didn't last long. But I'm not there to make him happy. I'm there to represent my country to the best of MY ability. I couldn't give two ****s about what the politics think.

I'm not looking to change the formation of the most basic laws in OUR country. I'm looking to present a wider view to the government of potential changes. Any changes that are deemed "worthy" will be put to everyone in the form of referendums.

I have no problem debating this with you further, if you desire. All I ask in return, is politeness.

JDOF

If you thought there was a lack of politeness in my post, I apologise, I assure you that was not at all my intention.

My criticism is of the Convention process, not of you personally or any of the 66 unelected members, and I commend your openness for discussing this in a public forum.

I do understand that the powers of the convention are limited, but it is not completely toothless. My basic point still stands, the convention is a public forum which will make recommendations on constitutional reform. If it is to exist at all, it should have a democratic mandate.

I have no reason to doubt that you are an honest decent citizen like most of the country, but we have to take your word for it, and that is a big problem.

(One last suggestion is that we dispense with the term "ordinary" citizen. There are not grades of citizenship, we are all ordinary citizens.)

RangeR

JDOF wrote: »

If you thought there was a lack of politeness in my post, I apologise, I assure you that was not at all my intention.

My criticism is of the Convention process, not of you personally or any of the 66 unelected members, and I commend your openness for discussing this in a public forum.

I do understand that the powers of the convention are limited, but it is not completely toothless. My basic point still stands, the convention is a public forum which will make recommendations on constitutional reform. If it is to exist at all, it should have a democratic mandate.

I have no reason to doubt that you are an honest decent citizen like most of the country, but we have to take your word for it, and that is a big problem.

(One last suggestion is that we dispense with the term "ordinary" citizen. There are not grades of citizenship, we are all ordinary citizens.)

Totally understand. My politeness comment wasn't directed at yourself, specifically, but in general. I'm sure heated debate will ensue at times. To that, I welcome. Inevitably, heated debate often turns into name calling and abuse, especially when "politics" is involved No offence intended

You will [might] get to know my character over time, as with all good meetings. My intent is to engage with the wider pubic. I don't intend to be silent in the convention. I fully intend to take some submissions from boards, to the convention and be heard.

Now, don't read too much into the previous statement. We don't have an infinite amount of time to discuss ALL of the constitution. I would love to bring everything, time just wouldn't allow it. We shall all decide what submissions I bring. If there is no consensus, then I will just decide. Prioritise and deliver. I know that's not entirely democratic and some won't be happy but there is only so much time something can be debated. I'm hoping to make some submissions at our first meeting in January [proposed 26/27, location to be decided].

I intend to be fully transparent about the process [just don't "out me"*]. I will do my best to report back on the status of each submission. I have already requested, directly to Mr Arnold, that we meet twice a month rather than once as I fear that we just don't have enough time. Think about it. We will be in session for a year, or close to it. In that time, we will meet only 8 times. It's ridiculous.

*Fully aware that this is easy. But you don't have to make it easy for everyone. If I am outed, that will be the last conversation had with that person or group as that's just wrong.

JDOF

RangeR wrote: »

Totally understand. My politeness comment wasn't directed at yourself, specifically, but in general. I'm sure heated debate will ensue at times. To that, I welcome. Inevitably, heated debate often turns into name calling and abuse, especially when "politics" is involved No offence intended

You will [might] get to know my character over time, as with all good meetings. My intent is to engage with the wider pubic. I don't intend to be silent in the convention. I fully intend to take some submissions from boards, to the convention and be heard.

Now, don't read too much into the previous statement. We don't have an infinite amount of time to discuss ALL of the constitution. I would love to bring everything, time just wouldn't allow it. We shall all decide what submissions I bring. If there is no consensus, then I will just decide. Prioritise and deliver. I know that's not entirely democratic and some won't be happy but there is only so much time something can be debated. I'm hoping to make some submissions at our first meeting in January [proposed 26/27, location to be decided].

I intend to be fully transparent about the process [just don't "out me"*]. I will do my best to report back on the status of each submission. I have already requested, directly to Mr Arnold, that we meet twice a month rather than once as I fear that we just don't have enough time. Think about it. We will be in session for a year, or close to it. In that time, we will meet only 8 times. It's ridiculous.

[SIZE="1"][COLOR="Silver"]*Fully aware that this is easy. But you don't have to make it easy for everyone. If I am outed, that will be the last conversation had with that person or group as that's just wrong.[/COLOR][/SIZE]

Again I commend your openness and your obvious enthusiasm for the job you've taken on.

If there had been an election for a convention I might even have voted for you.

However there wasn't and I couldn't and that is my basic problem with the whole process.

Of course I have no interest in "outing" you or anyone else. But I do think it is unacceptable to have recommendations on the constitution being made by people of whom the Irish public know nothing. But that is a decision for the Convention itself not an online forum.

I wish you all the best but I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

hmmm

JDOF wrote: »

This "entrenched political elite" that you're talking about are the people that we elected. They didn't land in on us from Mars, we voted for them. In a democracy we get the politicians that we deserve.

In a democracy we get the politicians that find it easiest to be elected under the current electoral system.

The current system, as an example, is hugely over-represented by teachers who are free to run for office knowing a job is there for them if they fail to win election.

The current system favours politicians who are active on small, local, parish-pump issues.

The current system favours political parties, particularly current parties.

The current system does not allow for outside expertise to run departments, a la the US system.

JDOF

hmmm wrote: »

In a democracy we get the politicians that find it easiest to be elected under the current electoral system.

The current system, as an example, is hugely over-represented by teachers who are free to run for office knowing a job is there for them if they fail to win election.

The current system favours politicians who are active on small, local, parish-pump issues.

The current system favours political parties, particularly current parties.

The current system does not allow for outside expertise to run departments, a la the US system.

I agree with most of that actually. Plenty of common ground.

You're absolutely right that teachers and others who can take sabbaticals from secure employment are more likely to stand. In fact I think a good suggestion for reform would be to have a system where people had statutory paid leave (like maternity leave) to run for public office. Would give more people financial security to run for office.

Also correct that system, especially campaign finance laws are set up to assist incumbents. In fact system of public funding is almost certainly unconstitutional a la McKenna judgement. Will be struck down as soon as someone challenges it.

But the reason we have lots of "parish pump" politicians is that they get more votes than the other guys. There's nobody forcing the people of Kerry to vote for the Healy-Raes or the people of Tipp to vote for Mattie McGrath.

Scofflaw

JDOF wrote: »

Again I commend your openness and your obvious enthusiasm for the job you've taken on.

If there had been an election for a convention I might even have voted for you.

However there wasn't and I couldn't and that is my basic problem with the whole process.

Of course I have no interest in "outing" you or anyone else. But I do think it is unacceptable to have recommendations on the constitution being made by people of whom the Irish public know nothing. But that is a decision for the Convention itself not an online forum.

I wish you all the best but I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

No offence intended, but I think there's a basic misunderstanding there. The Convention is an ideas forum, and you realistically can't elect people with a mandate to give a particular recommendation before any convention has been held.

The suggestion that we should elect the citizen members of the convention is self-contradicting in another way as well - it would mean that the people with the best chance of election would be those who are in some way tied to the existing political parties, and those most likely to put themselves forward are those with such ties, or representing some special interest or other, all of which are entirely undesirable in this case.

The principle of selecting people at random rather than electing is the same one we use in jury duty, and for much the same reasons in both cases - here, we don't want a body of self-selected people, almost certainly drawn from the usual Irish circle of the politically interested. We want thinking from outside the political box.

As to whether those people will take seriously their duty to represent the rest of the Irish people, in the sense of wanting and trying to take on board what recommendations other people would have made in their place - I don't see any reason why they wouldn't do so. People, in general, take such duties as seriously as one might wish them to, which is how society actually manages to function at all.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Cookie_Monster

I would assume there was an option to say no thanks when the letter / call request first came through to you? I'm sure many many people would resent being put in such a position, losing weekends, dealing with politicians etc.

JDOF

There is no misunderstanding on my behalf as regards the convention. I know what it is and I think it's a terrible idea, but if it is to exist at all, it should be composed of existing elected officials, or should be directly elected. My objection is to anonymous, unelected, unvetted, unaccountable people having a role, however limited, in the government of our country.

We elect 166 deputies to the Dail to legislate on our behalf. Why can they not come up with their own proposals for constitutional reform? The convention is a talking shop posing as real reform.

Scofflaw

JDOF wrote: »

There is no misunderstanding on my behalf as regards the convention. I know what it is and I think it's a terrible idea, but if it is to exist at all, it should be composed of existing elected officials, or should be directly elected. My objection is to anonymous, unelected, unvetted, unaccountable people having a role, however limited, in the government of our country.

They have no role in our government, though. They have a purely ideas-generating role for possibilities for constitutional reform. They can enact exactly nothing, which is why they require no mandate. On the other hand, the selection of random citizens provides the possibility of suggestions the political parties might prefer not to make.

JDOF wrote: »

We elect 166 deputies to the Dail to legislate on our behalf. Why can they not come up with their own proposals for constitutional reform? The convention is a talking shop posing as real reform.

And, alas, the Dáil is a talking shop posing as a real legislature, so it seems overly optimistic to expect any more suggestions for real reform from them than we've had from them historically. When we have had 'reforms' put forward in referendum or legislation, they have come from the executive rather than the legislature, and they have invariably resulted in further concentration of power in the hands of the executive.

I am happy to see another source for ideas, and hope that they can avoid the prioritisation of executive efficiency over democracy.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Cookie_Monster

JDOF wrote: »

There is no misunderstanding on my behalf as regards the convention. I know what it is and I think it's a terrible idea, but if it is to exist at all, it should be composed of existing elected officials, or should be directly elected. My objection is to anonymous, unelected, unvetted, unaccountable people having a role, however limited, in the government of our country.

We elect 166 deputies to the Dail to legislate on our behalf. Why can they not come up with their own proposals for constitutional reform? The convention is a talking shop posing as real reform.

what about all those unelected people working at a high level in all the departments, effectively running the show while the politicos just strut around and change ever 5 years or so, do you find them unacceptable? Or what about AGs, they are elected but do enforce our laws, are they unacceptable?

expectationlost

the way iceland did was have a 1000 randomly selected people do the first ideas part and then elected 25 people, vocation/senator types, to knock up specific referendum proposals

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Constitutional_Assembly_election,_2010

RangeR

We have been named. As well as some of the day 0 speeches listed.
https://www.constitution.ie/Convention.aspx#documents

View

hmmm wrote: »

How else do you propose that a fundamental review of the constitution takes place? Let's say you had 100 members composed entirely of elected representatives - do you think that they are likely to put forward proposals for radical reform of the systems by which they were elected?

And the evidence the public are looking for radical reform is what exactly?

Usually, the electorate won't even go along with mild reform as: a) many people are just disinterested and b) others are "purists" who'll turn up their noses at the mild reforms as they don't go far enough in the - invariably wrong assumption - that by doing so, their "perfect" radical reform will instead be introduced soon.
The result of both is stasis and no reform of any kind.

hmmm

View wrote: »

The result of both is stasis and no reform of any kind.

And your point is? That we should do or offer nothing as an option?

One thing I don't understand is our unwillingness to put multiple referendum questions in front of the public. Other countries do it regularly, there is no reason we couldn't have 20 options on a ballot.

silenceisfoo

hmmm wrote: »

there is no reason we couldn't have 20 options on a ballot.

The politicians are confusing enough when there is only one issue let alone 20!
Also how would The Referendum Commission's pamphlet explaining the referendums get through the post box? It would be huge!

GRMA

Esel wrote: »

Saw Gerry was wearing shades when being interviewed on the RTE news last night. Maybe his eyesight is failing (like his memory)?

Is there public access to the convention? If not, there should be.

He had an operation on his eyes, he had a problem where his eyelashes turned inwards and hurt his eyes, or something to that effect.

Thankfully his operation went well.

Plus Gerry likes to set a trend come winter, last year it was his wonderful red scarf (looked seriously snug) but I think he set the bar too high with shades this year lol.

Esel

GRMA wrote: »

..he had a problem where his eyelashes turned inwards and hurt his eyes, or something to that effect...

Thanks for the scéal (see what I may have done there? *). Jarry (or his advisors) are to be congratulated on coming up with a very, very good cover story for having his iBags removed. In the old days, you just laid low for a month or two and grew a moustache.

I hope his vision is not adversely affected by temporarily looking at the cameras through brown-tinted glasses. History may refer to it as his Brown-IE period. The shades look like B&L Wayfarers. What's next - the white stick? (ivory, Colonial period, CITES exempt).

* I may have implied that the story was somewhat slanted.

View

hmmm wrote: »

And your point is?

The point was a randomly selected representative group of citizens will almost certainly NOT put forward proposals for "radical reform" since the general electorate shows little interest or support for radical reforms.

hmmm wrote: »

That we should do or offer nothing as an option?

Plenty of proposals for "mild reform" have been made over the years by various bodies including most obviously our political parties. We could start by putting some or all of them to the electorate.

hmmm wrote: »

One thing I don't understand is our unwillingness to put multiple referendum questions in front of the public. Other countries do it regularly, there is no reason we couldn't have 20 options on a ballot.

We have had multiple referenda on the same day although they are technically seperate referenda. I suspect many of those referenda in other countries are consultative referenda, not binding ones like we hold - consultative referenda are just advice from the electorate.

Xantia

I welcome this however there are underlying problems.

The 66 are chosen from registered voters.
A lot of people in the Republic and God knows how many overseas now and in NI are disenfranchised from the electoral system in ROI.
The registration of voters is held with the local authority which are currently using that information to bully people into paying for Banking debts so it does not encourage people to register to vote or to register again if they have moved house.

The Constitution itself although it is a worthy document it does not translate into law or fair governance.
One example would be the 'in camera' Family Law courts where it seems you have no rights if you are a father, or if you are too poor to pay for a solicitor but not poor enough to get legal aid.
Another recent example would be against article 40.6 The right of the citizens to assemble peaceably and without arms - peaceful protesters being arrested by Gardaí in Dublin 5 days ago.
What I am trying to say here is that even though there is a Constitution there is very little precedent for what happens if your constitutional rights are abused.
I don't even want to talk about the estimated 180,000 carers whose lives have been made harder by reducing the overall payment to them by €25 Million.
That exact same €25 Million went to fund a deficit on Senior Civil Servants pensions that had to be shored up.


If I had only one wish for the Constitution it would be that a form of democracy would be restored to the people of this country.
That there would be some avenue of righting wrongs instead of having to protest day in and day out about issues that the overpaid politicians do not see.

I wish you and your team the best in your endeavours.

RangeR

Xantia wrote: »

I welcome this however there are underlying problems.

The 66 are chosen from registered voters.
A lot of people in the Republic and God knows how many overseas now and in NI are disenfranchised from the electoral system in ROI.
The registration of voters is held with the local authority which are currently using that information to bully people into paying for Banking debts so it does not encourage people to register to vote or to register again if they have moved house.

Sorry, but you are mistaken. To be 100% accurate, a private agency went door to door and asked citizens, who were legally entitled to vote, would they be interested. Nobody mentioned anything about registered voters.

Xantia wrote: »

The Constitution itself although it is a worthy document it does not translate into law or fair governance.

One example would be the 'in camera' Family Law courts where it seems you have no rights if you are a father, or if you are too poor to pay for a solicitor but not poor enough to get legal aid.

OK, let's discuss these two topics. Are these dictated in law, the constitution or anecdotal? The consititution is a subset of the law so may not be a constitutional issue. I'm not a legal expert and have only read about a quarter of the constitution. I will certainly keep an eye out for these two. If you could point me in the right direction, I'll be sure to study it. However, Article 40.1 states

All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.

This shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and of social function.

To me, it seems that what you stated may be considered a breach of constitutional rights. The second sentence, however, seems to give a little leeway to the state which seems to be highly subjective. Physical? Moral? Social Function?

Xantia wrote: »

Another recent example would be against article 40.6 The right of the citizens to assemble peaceably and without arms - peaceful protesters being arrested by Gardaí in Dublin 5 days ago.

I'm not aware of this specific issue. Can you linky it?

I fear you are misquoting and selectively quoting, Article 40.6 clearly states in FULL

The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights, subject to public order and morality: –
i The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.

The education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave import to the common good, the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State.

The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.


ii The right of the citizens to assemble peaceably and without arms.

Provision may be made by law to prevent or control meetings which are determined in accordance with law to be calculated to cause a breach of the peace or to be a danger or nuisance to the general public and to prevent or control meetings in the vicinity of either House of the Oireachtas.

Both of these rights are not absolute. They do have conditions. I don't know the specifics of 5 days ago. I'd like to read an article but maybe, just maybe, the bold piece above related. I can imagine it was related to the budget.

What I am trying to say here is that even though there is a Constitution there is very little precedent for what happens if your constitutional rights are abused.

Article 40.3.1 and 40.3.2 clearly state

1° The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen.
2° The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life, person, good name, and property rights of every citizen.

Citizens are clearly protected under the constitution. Precedent is law, not constitution. I don't believe this falls under the discussion remit. There will be precedent in law if a breach of constitutional rights is successfully challenged in court.

I don't even want to talk about the estimated 180,000 carers whose lives have been made harder by reducing the overall payment to them by €25 Million.
That exact same €25 Million went to fund a deficit on Senior Civil Servants pensions that had to be shored up.

How is that unconstitutional. Shocking cherry picking by the Government, agreed, but nothing to do with the constitution.

If I had only one wish for the Constitution it would be that a form of democracy would be restored to the people of this country.
That there would be some avenue of righting wrongs instead of having to protest day in and day out about issues that the overpaid politicians do not see.

Again, I believe you are mixing law with the constitution. Righting wrongs is a job for law and the courts. The constitution is a series of stated facts and rights.

I wish you and your team the best in your endeavours.

Thank you. I hope you don't find my responses offensive. I have a tendency to debate through fact and logic rather than emotion. I don't disagree with much of what you said. I just question the points being related to the constitution.

RangeR

Moving forward with a transparent air... I have been one of the 99 citizens selected to be apart of the Steering Group. We are meeting on Wednesday to discuss how to progress the two issues in January. I would assume that there is also a short list of interested parties to be chosen to speak in the plenary session.

The Steering Group consists of Mr Arnold, 4 of the 66, 5 of the 33 and a few from the actual Convention Committee.

Edit : To be clear, I was selected because I volunteered. I assume not everyone volunteered.

RangeR

Current steering group is an interim one. We will be meeting again on Jan 16th to formalise and try get the weighting in favour of the 66 rather than the 33.

Official tag : #ccven
It is envisaged that there will be live blogging to this tag during all plenaries.
It is envisaged that there will be a screen at each plenary where the public can "talk back" to the members during plenary. Ask questions or look for clarification etc.

There is also a facebook page. Will post it here when I know what it is. When I do post it, that will probably be the last I mention it. I don't do facebook.

Paper advertisement will be published soon, asking for submissions for the first two items on the list.

expectationlost

why does there need to be an even smaller group of people to decide things vital to the whole group?

RangeR

It is standard practice in any large group. The smaller steering group will efficiently assist in setting up and agreeing a format for each meeting, including how much time would be assigned to each speaker and member.

If it wasn't for the steering group "steering the meetings", half of each meeting would be wasted on discussing these things rather than discussing the relevant topics. It's not efficient for a 100 member group to try agree on the basic standard operating procedures. It's more efficient for a smaller group [5 or 10] to do this, present it to the wider group and move from there.

That's all. It is what it says. It steers [directs] the meetings.

In a round about way, this of it as

• Tom Arnold as the main referee
• The steering group as the lines men
• The rest of the members as the "team"

Where all parties get to have a say. But there still must be structure. There must be rules. With no rules, there will be anarchy.

Tom and his admins may suggest certain rules. The steering group may come up with other rules that agree with, compliment or go against Tom's suggestions.

The steering group is not to be thought of as a dictatorship but rather streamlining.

Here's one example of the "non efficiency" of not having a steering group. On the first meeting, behind closed doors. We had multiple topics to discuss. I don't remember the specifics. Let's say it was 10 topics of how to move forward. Because it was the 100 of us discussing it, about 80% of the time was spent on just ONE topic. The rest were either rushed or dropped for future reference.

expectationlost

the constituional convention is that smaller group

RangeR

expectationlost wrote: »

the constituional convention is that smaller group

What? Whoa? Hang on a second.... Ah ye got me