Constitutional Convention

RangeR

expectationlost wrote: »

RangeR wrote: »

well at the time the first report was written/published...

confused as to which plenary you voted on the AOB options , oh it was online http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87941363&postcount=131

it was a write in ballot? or had they set out a list of topics? was it this long list http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=86927208&postcount=124 the first two attached pics?

It was a write in / eMail ballot.
Why the sudden interest?


Various attachments below.

The EMail wrote:

I trust you have all recovered from the weekend – the feedback indicates that you appeared to have enjoyed yourselves at any rate.......



As promised, please find attached ballot papers which we agreed to issue last weekend:



- Ballot Paper I gives you the opportunity to express a view on the constitutional issues which should receive further consideration by government or otherwise.....to help you, I’m attaching the latest version of the public submissions received and the issues raised at the regional meetings and during the course of our own meetings;

- Ballot Paper II gives you an opportunity to comment on any future Convention, what it might look like etc.........you might like to think about the letter from Mary Lou and the contributions of those who spoke at our final session on Sunday......I have also included a box for you to express your own personal view of the Convention because I’d like to include a chapter in our final report called “Convention Voices” with a selection of your thoughts over the last 15 months.



I’m working to a fairly tight deadline, so I would be grateful if you please return the completed ballot papers to me by 5 p.m. on Wednesday next. You can e-mail them to me, post them to the office in Parnell Square, or Oireachtas members can drop them into the Enquiry Office for my attention.



Couple of other things:

- We’ll have a draft report of the Dail Reform meeting ready on Monday – again I’d be grateful for obs;

- I have over 1,000 photos of last weekend (from the tour of Dail and the Seanad to the Family Photo to selfies with the Chairman – and everything in between).......I’ll find a discreet spot on the website and mail you a link next week.....if you have any which you would like to share, please feel free to send them on......



As always, give me a shout if you need anything,

expectationlost

RangeR wrote: »

expectationlost wrote: »

It was a write in / eMail ballot.
Why the sudden interest?

its never too late.

I sort of liked the plenary 100 recap Q&A after each round table in the first one or two weekends. Where every table was asked to explain why they put forward a given conversation point. That sort of stopped after a while.

this is disappointing if it stopped, it seemed the good part of the whole deliberative democracy, watching people talk through the issues.


so tell us are you more upset about the Senators lobbying to use the constitutional convention to discuss a constitutional issue, the Seanad abolition, or the goverments follow through on the whole convention?

im still bothered by the lack of effort put into the presidential age referendum.

RangeR

expectationlost wrote: »

RangeR wrote: »

its never too late.


this is disappointing if it stopped, it seemed the good part of the whole deliberative democracy, watching people talk through the issues.


so tell us are you more upset about the Senators lobbying to use the constitutional convention to discuss a constitutional issue, the Seanad abolition, or the goverments follow through on the whole convention?

im still bothered by the lack of effort put into the presidential age referendum.

The lobbying.

ALL lobby groups were told to go through Tom and not through the 66. The senators unapologetically used the convention for their own ends, as a soap box. There was no need for it. We had rules preventing it. The senators had every opportunity to make submissions in the normal way but chose not to.

As it happened, I believed in their cause. In so far as not abolishing the Seanad. However, they broke the rules. I spoke out two or three times in that few minutes. In the end, when it was clear that a vote had been called, I asked that if we were going to break our own rules and submit to a lobby group, at the very least, the cameras be turned off while we do it.

It was at this point that Tom realised that the cameras were still broadcasting, and requested them to stop. The vote was held. I did not participate. It was also the last time I spoke publicly in the convention.

expectationlost

RangeR wrote: »

expectationlost wrote: »

The lobbying.

ALL lobby groups were told to go through Tom and not through the 66. The senators unapologetically used the convention for their own ends, as a soap box. There was no need for it. We had rules preventing it. The senators had every opportunity to make submissions in the normal way but chose not to.

As it happened, I believed in their cause. In so far as not abolishing the Seanad. However, they broke the rules. I spoke out two or three times in that few minutes. In the end, when it was clear that a vote had been called, I asked that if we were going to break our own rules and submit to a lobby group, at the very least, the cameras be turned off while we do it.

It was at this point that Tom realised that the cameras were still broadcasting, and requested them to stop. The vote was held. I did not participate. It was also the last time I spoke publicly in the convention.

how could you expect the participating Senators not to try and save their own skin?

just counting how many members/senators were involved 7.

why isn't Norris on this list of convention members?

https://www.constitution.ie/Documents/ListOfMembers.pdf

RangeR

expectationlost wrote: »

RangeR wrote: »

how could you expect the participating Senators not to try and save their own skin?

just counting how members senators were involved 7.

why isn't Norris on this list of convention members?

https://www.constitution.ie/Documents/ListOfMembers.pdf

I dunno. Maybe he was a last minute replacement. He was at the first or second session although I don't remember seeing him at the launch in Dublin Castle, but not certain.

expectationlost

David Norris not on April 2013 list https://www.constitution.ie/AttachmentDownload.ashx?mid=e2478593-b9a5-e211-a5a0-005056a32ee4

expectationlost

RangeR wrote: »

expectationlost wrote: »

I dunno. Maybe he was a last minute replacement. He was at the first or second session although I don't remember seeing him at the launch in Dublin Castle, but not certain.

don't suppose you have list of members from 03/12/2012 when it was first published? perhaps attached to a email you got? any before April 2013 https://www.constitution.ie/NewsDetails.aspx?nid=3096c3cd-923d-e211-a5a0-005056a32ee4

RangeR

expectationlost wrote: »

don't suppose you have list of members from 03/12/2012 when it was first published? perhaps attached to a email you got? any before April 2013 https://www.constitution.ie/NewsDetails.aspx?nid=3096c3cd-923d-e211-a5a0-005056a32ee4

I went through all of my eMails. Sorry, I don't have a membership list in my eMail. However, the first eMail where he was included as a recipient was 29 Jan 2013. He was not on an earlier eMail dated 24 Jan 2013.

expectationlost

I wonder how many of the plenary's David Norris was at

RangeR

expectationlost wrote: »

I wonder how many of the plenary's David Norris was at

Not many. From memory [which is never correct for me], less than half. However, all of the ones he did partake in, he participated fully [I can't say the same for all of the 33 or 66], if you can overlook the grandstanding on camera

expectationlost

FRI, 13 NOV 2015 AT 9:30 A.M.
Irish Citizens Decide: A Review of the Irish Convention on the Constitution
UCD Newman House, Dublin 2, Ireland https://www.eventbrite.ie/e/irish-citizens-decide-a-review-of-the-irish-convention-on-the-constitution-tickets-19473697353

why are they reviewing it before all the reports have been responded to https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bjCSdRe4gGWPZf7WjSBxfQYwl5-e-6wKrcE18P4KhbI/edit?usp=sharing now years overdue

get your invite RangeR?

RangeR

Yeah, I got my invite on the 9th. I almost missed it as I didn't see it coming in. I saw it as SPAM and just let it drop down my eMail list. That night, Sorcha asked me if I got the ccven eMail.

This wasn't an official ccven organised event. It was privately organised with ccven members invited.

To be honest, I've given up enough of my time on ccven. I'm not taking another day off for a convention that gov.ie instigated and ignored after we finished.

Yeah, rightly or wrongly, I'm a bit bitter about it. I'll buy David's book when he publishes it, though. Would be good to see his take on it.




The invite

Hello,
You are invited to the following event:

IRISH CITIZENS DECIDE: A REVIEW OF THE IRISH CONVENTION ON THE CONSTITUTION

Event to be held at the following time, date and location:

Friday, 13 November 2015 from 09:30 to 13:00 (GMT)

UCD Newman House
86 Newman House
St Stephen's Green
Dublin 2
Ireland

Ireland’s Convention on the Constitution, which met from late 2012 to early 2014, was a world first both in allowing ordinary citizens a place in discussions about the future of our Constitution and also due to its role in the calling of the Marriage Equality Referendum earlier this year.

This half-day seminar – which has been supported by the Department of the Taoiseach – will review the work, operation and outcomes of the Convention. The panelists will include former members and organisers of the Convention, the academic team who supported and monitored its operation, and journalists who provided critical coverage of it.


Draft programme

09:30: Arrival and registration.

09:45: Welcome and introduction: Prof Ken Carty (Research Director of the British Columbia's Citizens' Assembly) shall make some opening remarks.

10:00: Panel discussion on the Convention and its outcomes. Confirmed participants include:

Tom Arnold, Chair of the Convention;
Art O’Leary, Secretary of the Convention;
Dr Jane Suiter (DCU);
Dearbhail McDonald (Legal Editor, Irish Independent);
Three members of the Convention: Senator Katherine Zappone, Deirdre Donaghy, Aideen Larkin.

11:30: Tea/coffee break

12:00: What can we learn from the Irish Constitutional Convention? A presentation of research findings by the academic team who supported the work of the Convention.

13:00: End of workshop. A free lunch will be provided.




Share this event on Facebook and Twitter

We hope you can make it.

Kind regards,

David Farrell (UCD)
Clodagh Harris (UCC)
Jane Suiter (DCU)

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

Dug up from the archive.

expectationlost

response on Dail reform report 523 days overdue and counting (its need to be debated in Oireachtas) but Kenny says these 3 measures agreed at cabinet this week http://www.merrionstreet.ie/en/News-Room/News/Government%E2%80%99s_Response_to_the_Constitutional_Convention%E2%80%99s_Report_on_Dail_Reform.html During the final term the Government will seek Dáil approval to introduce three changes that will come into effect in the next Dáil including:

The election of the Ceann Comhairle by secret ballot.

The proportionate allocation of Oireachtas Committee Chairs under the d’Hondt system.

The Taoiseach to appear regularly before the Working Group of Committee Chairs.

a significant shift?

wouldn’t even a secret vote still lead to the gov majority voting in a gov favoured candidate? and once in, if people complained he or the gov could say, ‘well you voted me/him in’ And the goverment would continue to hold power over Dail vis the Chief Whip, the Oireachtas Commission and Committee of Procedure of Privileges.

RangeR

Not sure how that would work in practice but in theory it would give the option for some FG/LAB [in the current situation] to vote against Government if they think there is a better opponent. May not happen but one can dream.

It's a step in the right direction. Little steps are better than no steps.

expectationlost

RangeR wrote: »

Not sure how that would work in practice but in theory it would give the option for some FG/LAB [in the current situation] to vote against Government if they think there is a better opponent. May not happen but one can dream.

It's a step in the right direction. Little steps are better than no steps.

it rarely happens, the only time I read that it does is when theres a very slim majority or a minority gov and it actually benefits the goverment to take out one of the opposition from being able to vote against them, it'll rarely happen though.

expectationlost

Kieran Coughlan former Dail clerk wrote a letter to the IT saying any secret ballot for whatever reason sets bad precedent http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/d%C3%A1il-%C3%A9ireann-and-secret-ballots-1.2485872#.Vo0m3VN-F1E.twitter and siad the convention wisely advised that that the change be made by referendum, the Examiner follwoed up on this http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/former-top-dail-official-kieran-coughlan-critical-of-secret-ballot-to-elect-ceann-comhairle-374804.html the gov said the constitution convention was unsure (which I believe the experts advisors said they weren't unsure which way the Attorney General would advise) if the change required referendum or not so made a recommendation for one but also for the change to happen by change of Dail standing orders, if possible, which I guess the vote on page 7 of the dail reform report covers but in the actuall recommendations part it says

In respect of
reforms requiring Constitutional change, Convention members recommended that the role
of the Office of the Ceann Comhairle be enhanced by its inclusion in the text of the Constitution and by the election of the office-holder by secret ballot

https://www.constitution.ie/AttachmentDownload.ashx?mid=bd05f391-a9b8-e311-a7ce-005056a32ee4

expectationlost

Thursday 14 January 2016
Dáil Statements on Convention on the Constitution Reports http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=30637&ad=1 for 2hrs? more then 1

got all these to reply to
Votes Outside the State
Dáil Reform
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Conclusions and Final Recommendations

expectationlost

Dail statements on final reports http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2016011400040?opendocument

*sigh*
on the ninth final report, the convention said a future convention should debate environment, local government and the seanad

Paul Kehoe says publishing a Bill and a report on Seanad reform is Seanad Reform, No it is not.

the 7th report on Dail reform

The convention also recommended that the election of the Ceann Comhairle be done by secret ballot in the interests of enhancing the independence of the office. The Government intends to bring a new proposed Standing Order to the House next week and to ask the Members to agree to this reform.

but again this wll be pushed through the CPP by the Dail majority and then whipped by gov, no real discussion by Dail TDs on it.

where did #ccven rec that committees shld have support from a panel of external members & former Deputies come from ? RangeR
https://www.constitution.ie/AttachmentDownload.ashx?mid=bd05f391-a9b8-e311-a7ce-005056a32ee4

eigth report of the convention, on putting economic, social and cultural rights into constitution thats a no from the gov.

response to fifth report on voting rights abroad from phelan http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2016011400040?opendocument

In summary, there is a series of complex and inter-related issues - issues of both principle and practicality - that must be analysed in detail. The Government is committed to undertaking that analysis and a start has been made on the work involved. At this stage, however, it will be for the next Government to consider taking this matter forward.

RangeR

expectationlost wrote: »

where did #ccven rec that committees shld have support from a panel of external members & former Deputies come from ? RangeR
https://www.constitution.ie/AttachmentDownload.ashx?mid=bd05f391-a9b8-e311-a7ce-005056a32ee4

It came up from a few tables. I brought it up at my table. The thinking being, Ministers are not experts in their brief. Government should bring in experts in their field to consult.

expectationlost

RangeR wrote: »

It came up from a few tables. I brought it up at my table. The thinking being, Ministers are not experts in their brief. Government should bring in experts in their field to consult.

ok it was the former deputies bit I was wondering about

expectationlost

Final report card on the government’s reactions to the Irish Constitutional Convention http://politicalreform.ie/2016/01/23/final-report-card-on-the-governments-reactions-to-the-irish-constitutional-convention/ "record not impressive" still wondering where all the other participants are

expectationlost

This week the Dail agreed to a secret ballot for the Ceann Comhairle http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2016012800011?opendocument#J00300 it will required 7 nomiantions and 30 TDs can force a vote if there is only nominee

David Farrell mentions that it was discussed at the constitutional convention http://politicalreform.ie/2016/01/30/at-last-some-real-dail-reform/ and recommended in the report https://www.constitution.ie/AttachmentDownload.ashx?mid=bd05f391-a9b8-e311-a7ce-005056a32ee4 the afaik experts advised then pointed out that in the UK you nominations from atleast two parties as he does in his blog post.

the report shows strongs a strong vote of 88 to 12 in favour of secret ballot but was there any discussion about having a sub-question on cross-party nomination requirements?

Im not in favour of it I think that the gov majority can still hand pick somebody and tell their party to vote for them, a secret ballot doesn't get rid entirely of the power of the party hq, triballism and the influence of the whip. Now when a biased CC is critised he can suggest the opposition voted for him whether its true or not we won't know.

expectationlost

Citizens’ assemblies are open to manipulation https://politicalreform.ie/2016/05/16/citizens-assemblies-are-open-to-manipulation/ says Eoin O'Malley who was who of the expert advisor for the convention, who also says some of those involved are just cheerleaders for it, so he obviosuyl felt he had to redress the balance

expectationlost

during debate on motion setting up Citizens Assembly

Senator Rónán Mullen: The bottom line is - I mention it only in passing - that we should not be in awe of blueprints from bodies which claim to articulate human rights concerns but have in fact a debilitated notion of human rights and would seek to exclude whole sections of the human community from the protection of the law.

No detail has been given today about how often people are going to meet and for how long. As nice as the people were and as diligent as they were in the Constitutional Convention, it was not a thorough searching of the issues. The food was good. The drink was good. The accommodation was nice.



Senator Rónán Mullen: It was a wasteful process. We need to know, for example, how many secretarial assistants from Leinster House found themselves on the convention as participating members, how many former Labour Party councillors were there and how many people were couples. How the hell could we have 66 people chosen, supposedly representative of the country, and actually have one couple among them? That is a remarkably strange concatenation of events.

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/seanad2016071500002?opendocument#BB00100 I've never been able to square the couple thing, it shouldn't have been handed to people to bash the convention with

McDowell complained that people who have to work everyday would not be involved, farmers?

expectationlost

never heard this before constitutional convention member says she got selected because friend who'd done surveys on her before asked her (and) because she fit demographic criteria https://www.rte.ie/radio1/liveline/programmes/2013/0219/368568-tuesday-19th-february-2013/?clipid=1003529#1003529 24m
https://www.constitution.ie/Documents/ListOfMembers.pdf

—66 citizens entitled to vote at a referendum, randomly selected so as to be broadly representative of Irish society;

https://www.kildarestreet.com/sendebates/?id=2012-07-12.290.0&s=constitutional+convention+motion

so its supposed demographically spread, the random part is in the address chosen within areas
https://www.constitution.ie/Documents/BehaviourAndAttitudes.pdf



if they are supposed to start at randomly slected address how did they manage to end up at this friends house (multiple times)

but with this new abortion issue, if some B&A surveyor knew a persons attitude to social issues because she surveyed them before that, I don't think you could really call it random

so this is what happened at the constitutional convention, discussing citziens assembly there http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=99987410

RangeR

Yeah, I haven't seen that page before, but co-incidentally heard it being referenced within the past week on Newstalk.
As far as random goes, I've said it before... the majority of people that were asked, refused to do it. That random pool can only get so small before you start to see patterns.

To put it into context, and again I've said this before... Sorcha , I believe, was picked in the first panel of 66. I wasn't even chosen to be in the shadow panel of 66, I was so far down the list. I believe I was somewhere in the 200-300 on the list. The bulk of those before me pulled out even before day 1 in Dublin Castle.

expectationlost

RangeR wrote: »

Yeah, I haven't seen that page before, but co-incidentally heard it being referenced within the past week on Newstalk.
As far as random goes, I've said it before... the majority of people that were asked, refused to do it. That random pool can only get so small before you start to see patterns.

To put it into context, and again I've said this before... Sorcha , I believe, was picked in the first panel of 66. I wasn't even chosen to be in the shadow panel of 66, I was so far down the list. I believe I was somewhere in the 200-300 on the list. The bulk of those before me pulled out even before day 1 in Dublin Castle.

I don't think you and Sorcha are a 'random' pattern, although randomness in question is really about the point of approach from the company which was randomly to your house, the neighbours thing would be random enough if the first address was chosen randomly, what the woman admitted on the radio might be more of a problem.

trying to find the ethical guidelines for surveyors using friends and acquaintances to complete surveys, all the ethics guidelines that B&A subscribes to and I could find were related to the market research company and vis a vis its clients rather then on surveyor behaviour http://banda.ie/about/

there some suggestions of political stuffing of the convention, I thinks if there is problem its more to do with lazy surveyors

expectationlost

RangeR wrote: »

Yeah, I haven't seen that page before, but co-incidentally heard it being referenced within the past week on Newstalk.
As far as random goes, I've said it before... the majority of people that were asked, refused to do it. That random pool can only get so small before you start to see patterns.

To put it into context, and again I've said this before... Sorcha , I believe, was picked in the first panel of 66. I wasn't even chosen to be in the shadow panel of 66, I was so far down the list. I believe I was somewhere in the 200-300 on the list. The bulk of those before me pulled out even before day 1 in Dublin Castle.

it think I'll call this the B&A/RangeR clause :P

Interviewers selected a start address at random within the DED allocated to them. They then tried to complete interviews at every nth house within that specific location. Within each household a random selection process was used to identify the person to try and recruit if more than one person was available.
 Direct applications from members of the public to take part in the Assembly were not accepted, as the members of the Assembly had to be chosen at random to ensure a completely unbiased approach and be broadly representative of all citizens using demographic variables as reflected in the Census. Similarly, interviewers were not allowed to recruit friends or family together. Similarly, interviewers were not allowed to recruit friends or family together.

some other rules in the the RED c metholodogy which seem to directly address criticism of the B&A process. http://citizensassembly.ie/en/About-the-Citizens-Assembly/Red-C-Methodology-Document.pdf

expectationlost

Report of the Task Force on Implementation of the Recommendations of the Second Report of the Convention on the Constitution http://justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/Report_of_the_Task_Force_on_Implementation_of_the_Recommendations_of_the_Second_Report_of_the_Convention_on_the_Constitution recommends a referendum on removing and rewriting the women in the home bit, the government really don't want to rewrite the constitution in way that would mean they'd have to provide more for carers and also make it less gender specific re parenting etc,its difficult but at some point you gotta bite the bullet and decide to hold a ref, surely the former chairwomen of the National Women's Council and future Taoiseach/Preisdent France Fitzgerald would want to pass this amendment during her time?

Conclusions and Recommendations

6.1 The Task Force concurs with the view expressed by the Constitution Review Group in its 1996 report that “the Constitution, as a fundamental legal framework establishing powers, rights and responsibilities, should be as simple and clear as possible, leaving the treatment of particular or changing circumstances to be dealt with by the more flexible democratic process of legislation11”.

6.2 The Task Force recommends two options for consideration as possible means of modernising the provisions of Article 41.2 of the Constitution, broadening their scope and introducing gender-neutral language, while at the same time respecting the role of the Government in deciding how public funds are allocated.

The first of these options would replace the existing text of Article 41.2.1 and 2 by a provision which would

 recognise the support that home and family life gives society as well as the contribution made by carers within the home;
 provide for a commitment under which the State would endeavour to support persons caring for others within the home; and
 make provision for such support to be determined by law with a view to ensuring that the Government and Oireachtas remain responsible for decisions on the allocation of public funds and the determination of public policy regarding carers more generally.

A provision of this kind could be framed along the following lines:

“The State recognises that home and family life gives to society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved. The State shall endeavour to support persons caring for others within the home as may be determined by law.”

The second option would replace the existing text of Article 41.2.1 and 2 by a provision which would :
 in Article 41.2, recognise the support that home and family life gives society as well as the contribution made by carers within the home; and
 in Article 45, which contains the Directive Principles on Social Policy, provide for a commitment under which the State would endeavour to ensure support for persons caring for others both in the home and in the wider community.

A provision of this kind might be framed along the following lines:

“The State recognises that home and family life gives to society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.”

and insert a new provision in Article 45.4.3, along the following lines:

“The State shall endeavour to ensure that persons caring for others in the home and in the wider community receive support in recognition of the contribution they make to society.”

6.3 Regarding the recommendation that the Constitution should be amended to include an explicit provision on gender equality, the Task Force recommends that the issue of the incorporation of the principle of gender equality should be considered further in the wider context of the relevant recommendations of the Constitutional Review Group, including the possibility of making provision for a general non-discrimination clause and/or incorporation of the principle in respect of other relevant grounds. The Department of Justice and Equality should undertake further examination of this question and make recommendations to the Minister as soon as possible.

6.4 Concerning the amendment of the Constitution as a whole to ensure its provisions are expressed in gender-neutral language throughout the text, the Task Force recommends that the Department of Justice and Equality pursue this matter further in consultation with the Attorney General’s Office drawing, in particular, on the work already done by the All-Party Committee on the Constitution.

The Family
Article 41
1. 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.
2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.
2. 1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.
2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.