Constitutional Convention

expectationlost

RangeR wrote: »

I don't know. Outside of the actual convention, we don't really talk about the convention. We are just back to our normal lives.

Having said that, I know of only one more of the 66 that is out spoken on the ccven issues. I believe she is a regular contributor to the Joe Duffy show. I don't listen to the show so I'm not sure on the specifics.

is it Rosaleen? from residents against racism who was already outspoken?

was there any talk of reducing age you could stand for TD, its currently 21

oh there was https://www.constitution.ie/AttachmentDownload.ashx?mid=e1f8e128-2496-e211-a5a0-005056a32ee4

it seems if you were going to reduce voting age, you make candidacy age a bit closer


also http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93959950&postcount=241

expectationlost

Minister Kelly announces Government Agreement on the Amendment of the Constitution (Age of Eligibility for Election to the Office of President) Bill 2015 http://www.environ.ie/en/LocalGovernment/Voting/Referenda/News/MainBody,40086,en.htm

but not much more detail

RangeR

expectationlost wrote: »

is it Rosaleen? from residents against racism who was already outspoken?

was there any talk of reducing age you could stand for TD, its currently 21

oh there was https://www.constitution.ie/AttachmentDownload.ashx?mid=e1f8e128-2496-e211-a5a0-005056a32ee4

it seems if you were going to reduce voting age, you make candidacy age a bit closer


also http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93959950&postcount=241

I'm not aware of there being a Rosaleen on the 66 but maybe she was a new replacement. No, not her. I was told that it's Yvonne. Very outspoken during the Convention too. Speaks her mind.

expectationlost

Coalition blocks public selection
of Aras candidates

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/ireland/News/article1511255.ece Sunday Times Paywall


In July 2013, Phil Hogan, then the environment minister, told the Dail that the government had decided to refer the proposal to broaden the election nomination process to an Oireachtas committee.

The issue of greater and direct citizen participation in nominating a presidential candidate requires further consideration concerning its implementation. We have asked the Oireachtas Committee on the Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht to do further work on that matter. https://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2013-07-18a.365#g393

Last week an Oireachtas spokeswoman said: “Phil Hogan wrote to the environment committee, which did look at [the issue] briefly, and noted it, but has not got around to doing anything about it yet.”

what buck passing!

expectationlost

Harry McGee says there were 18 possible proposals that could have gone to referendum http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/only-two-proposals-for-constitution-referendum-1.2079176 2 are

RangeR

expectationlost wrote: »

Harry McGee says there were 18 possible proposals that could have gone to referendum http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/only-two-proposals-for-constitution-referendum-1.2079176 2 are

Mr Tom Arnold was on the George Hook Show [Newstalk] last night at around 5:30, discussing this. George pretty much asked was the Convention a failure considering the Government apathy towards our recommendations. Can't remember how it was answered by Tom.

Just to have them listed...

Convention recommendations that would require a referendum

1. Reducing the age of candidacy for presidential candidates
2. Giving citizens a say in the nomination process for presidential candidates
3. Reducing the voting age to 16
4. Altering the role of women in the home
5. Making explicit provision on gender equality
6. Amending the Constitution to include ‘gender-inclusive’ language
7. Making provisions for same-sex marriage 8. Strengthening economic and social rights
9. Enumerating rights such as housing social security
10. Enhancing the status and office of Ceann Comhairle
11. Electing the Ceann Comhairle by secret ballot
12. Including references to Dáil committees in the Constitution
13. Amending article 17.2 (re government prior approval for expenditure proposals)
14. Including non-parliamentary ministers in government
15. Requiring members of the Dáil to resign their seats on being appointed to ministerial office
16. Introduction of citizen initiatives
17. Giving citizens abroad and in Northern Ireland the right to vote in presidential elections
18. Removal of the offence of blasphemy

expectationlost

RangeR wrote: »

Mr Tom Arnold was on the George Hook Show [Newstalk] last night at around 5:30, discussing this. George pretty much asked was the Convention a failure considering the Government apathy towards our recommendations. Can't remember how it was answered by Tom.

Just to have them listed...

these things a designed to fail, its not the CC's fault

expectationlost

Thirty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Age of Eligibility for Election to the Office of President) Bill 2015 http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=28035&CatID=59

deals with discrepancy

The Schedule of the Bill — Part 1 provides for the amendment of the Irish text of Article 12.4.1° of the Constitution to provide that every citizen who has reached the age of twenty-one years is eligible
for election to the office of President.

The Schedule of the Bill — Part 2 provides for the amendment of the English text of Article 12.4.1° of the Constitution to provide that every citizen who has reached the age of twenty-one years is eligible for election to the office of President. The English text is based on the text of Article 16.1.1° of the Constitution, which provides that every citizen ‘who has reached the age of twenty-one years. . .’ is eligible for membership of Dáil Éireann. The approach taken in the Constitution Amendment Bill addresses a potential conflict between the Irish and English text of Article 12.4.1° as it currently stands — while the Irish text requires a presidential candidate to have completed thirty-five years of age, the English text requires the candidate only to have ‘reached his [or her] thirty-fifth year of age’, which one would do on one’s thirty-fourth birthday. Both the Irish and English texts of the Bill are aligned and provide that every citizen who has reached the age of twenty-one years is eligible for election to the office of President.

I mistakenly thought that marriage equality wasn't a CC issue, but it was, Labour weren't going to let is slide away
Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution (Marriage Equality) Bill 2015
http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=28029&&CatID=59

expectationlost

RangeR wrote: »

Mr Tom Arnold was on the George Hook Show [Newstalk] last night at around 5:30, discussing this. George pretty much asked was the Convention a failure considering the Government apathy towards our recommendations. Can't remember how it was answered by Tom.

Just to have them listed...

Katherine Zappone Furthermore, the escalating crisis and its devastating impact on families and children provides yet another reason for guaranteeing economic, social and cultural rights in our Constitution. On 23 February last, the Constitutional Convention voted in favour of amending the Constitution to strengthen these rights, subject to the maximum available resources. Unfortunately, however, the Government has not committed to a referendum based on the convention's recommendations. I am perplexed by that decision. By offering a referendum to the people that would strengthen the enforceability of economic, social and cultural rights in Ireland, the Government could give people a chance to guarantee everybody in Ireland a life of dignity, including access to an adequate standard of living, which includes adequate housing. Will the Leader organise a debate with the Taoiseach or the appropriate Minister on why the question of economic, social and cultural rights is not being put to the people? https://www.kildarestreet.com/sendebates/?id=2015-02-03a.73&s=%22Constitutional+Convention%22#g182

Senator Zappone also raised the issue of the recommendations of the Constitutional Convention. The Government has taken into consideration everything from the Constitution Convention but, of course, it is not bound by all the recommendations of it.

8. Strengthening economic and social rights
9. Enumerating rights such as housing social security

number 8 or 9 could include enhancing rights to water.

https://www.constitution.ie/AttachmentDownload.ashx?mid=5333bbe7-a9b8-e311-a7ce-005056a32ee4 press release and results


but thye didn't specify it in their ballot

Yes
No
No
opinion
Housing
84
8
8
Social security
78
12
10
Essential health care
87
6
7
Rights of people with disabilities
90
3
7
Linguistic and cultural rights
75
15
9
Rights covered in the International Covenant on
ESC Rights
80
10
10


full report
https://www.constitution.ie/AttachmentDownload.ashx?mid=adc4c56a-a09c-e311-a7ce-005056a32ee4

RangeR

Sinn Féin Naas [Wolfe Tone Cumann] are proud to co-sponsor, along with the Ard Chomhairle, a motion at the upcoming Ard Fheis

This Ard Fheis calls on the Irish Government to urgently expedite the recommendations from the Constitutional Convention to referenda stage and allow citizens to now have their say, including reducing the voting age to 16; amending the women in the home clause; marriage equality; Presidential voting rights for citizens in the North and also those living outside Ireland; Dáil reform; electing the Ceann Comhairle through secret ballot); economic, social and cultural rights.

expectationlost

i got sick of following this, if none of the participants but Ranger will speak up about this..

but David Farrell: Constitutional Convention ‘brand’ is in jeopardy http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/david-farrell-constitutional-convention-brand-is-in-jeopardy-1.2142826 sounds like he's worried about his own reputation since he stake his on the sucess of this

conorh91

I find it amazing how personal interests can so blatantly colour commentators' opinions.

Farrell is upset because he feels like his baby has not been afforded sufficient gravitas. He also exaggerates the extent to which our constitutional convention was a "world first" (no, it wasn't).

Meanwhile, constitutional law lecturer Conor O'Mahony found the whole thing a dull charade from the outset. Why? Largely because he wasn't invited to address it
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/this-so-called-constitutional-convention-is-a-charade-1.1064539

I wouldn't take expressions of such indignation too seriously tbh. And not being personal, but that extends to the convention delegate who participates in this thread. Nobody likes to see their personal effort minimized, but if you have personal involvement (or you're offended that you don't have personal involvement) not exactly speaking from a position of impartiality.

RangeR

expectationlost wrote: »

i got sick of following this, if none of the participants but Ranger will speak up about this..

Yeah, I don't know why the other 66 don't speak up publicly. Some of them do to me, in private.

To be honest, I'm all but done with the whole thing at this point. Apparently, it wasn't treated as a process thing from the start. I'm sick of the lies from Gov.ie.

RangeR

Sinn Féin have brought a Private Members Bill [11 March 2015 - Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution (Presidential Voting) Bill 2014] for Dáil debate. There has been no other debate, that I'm aware of, by our elected representatives. It looks like all opposition parties and IND are supportive of the ccven recommendations.

RangeR

eMail in. As it would involve taking time off work, I don't think I can make it. But considering it.

Citizens and Constitutions Conference
Royal Irish Academy
Friday 27 March 2015

Prof. David Farrell, UCD has asked me to send you on details of a conference he is organising with the Institute of British Irish Studies ( http://www.ucd.ie/ibis/ ) about the Convention on the Constitution and how the model might be applied in UK debates over constitutional reform.

Date: Friday 27 March Time: 09.30-15.00 Location: Royal Irish Academy, Dawson Street, Dublin 2

For more details, see: http://www.ucd.ie/ibis/newsevents/latestnewsevents/citizensandconstitutions/

Please note: while there is no charge for admission, you must register with IBIS in advance at IBIS@ucd.ie

Best regards

expectationlost

Justine MCarthy in Sunday Times has one page piece about the convention
silly headline "President Horan?"
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/ireland/News/article1534487.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2015_03_21
/paywall

interviews various participants, nothing surprising

expectationlost

Yet one final model does seem able to tick all the boxes. This is the model of the 2013–14 Irish Constitutional Convention. As recently outlined to the Constitution Unit by its Research Director, Professor David Farrell, the Irish Constitutional Convention had a mixed composition: two thirds of its members were randomly selected citizens on the citizens’ assembly model, while one third were politicians appointed by the various parties. There were concerns before the Convention began its work that this mix would not work because the politicians would dominate and true deliberation would be stifled. But this did not occur: in fact, careful facilitation ensured that all members could contribute effectively. Though the schedule was excessively tight, quality debate did occur. Confidence in the process among the political commentariat grew as time went on. And, crucially, politicians felt a sense of buy-in to the Convention’s proposals: the government has already promised several referendums on the proposals, and it appears likely that at least some real change will take place.

http://constitution-unit.com/2014/06/03/considering-a-constitutional-convention-for-scotland/

expectationlost

In his preliminary internal assessment of the convention’s success, Farrell revealed two main weaknesses in the proceedings. First, he was critical of the ‘poor’ levels of government accountability once deliberations had ceased – a failing he blamed on the lack of a feedback loop between government figures and citizen members. Second, Farrell admitted the convention had been weak in terms of the openness of its agenda; though he suggested that this was an unavoidable consequence of the ‘political desperation’ that preceded it. Nonetheless, Farrell painted an optimistic picture of the convention a whole, suggesting ‘quite a good record’ when it came to its internal legitimacy. In particular, the selection of citizen members by means of random selection (as opposed to public elections) was crucial in strengthening the legitimacy of the convention, according to Farrell, as it ensured that no citizen had an explicit mandate to pursue. Equally important, in Farrell’s view, was the fact that invited experts immediately left the convention upon giving their testimony, thus ensuring that they did not overshadow the views and opinions of citizen members during discussion.

http://constitution-unit.com/2014/05/29/the-irish-constitution-convention/

expectationlost

When in 2012 the Irish government finally set up the convention, however, though influenced by this work they decided to include one-third politicians, a move Farrell says he and colleagues disagreed with at the time, but has “turned out to be a good formula”.With this in mind, a convention led by citizens but including politicians could suit the proposed UK context, Farrell says. “When there is a strongly held ideological view, such as how much power should be given to the English nation, it should work well.”

http://northern-drift.net/citizens-constitutional-convention-regionalism-devolution/

petronius

The constitutional convention was a loaded talking shop, directed and managed by the political elite. The government were using it to appear as they are doing something, if it CC agreed with government plans it was ok'ed and supported the governments position, if it disagreed with the government it gets ignored.

RangeR

petronius wrote: »

The constitutional convention was a loaded talking shop, directed and managed by the political elite.

Incorrect

petronius wrote: »

The government were using it to appear as they are doing something

Looking like this is correct.

petronius wrote: »

if it CC agreed with government plans it was ok'ed and supported the governments position, if it disagreed with the government it gets ignored.

Incorrect, generally.

expectationlost

discussing of presidential age bill but many mentions of convention

In conclusion, the Government has committed to holding two referenda in May, one on marriage equality and the other on the subject of this Bill. I understand that if either or both of these proposals is accepted by the people, Ireland's Constitutional Convention will be the first ever citizens' assembly of its type to produce bona fide constitutional change.

https://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2015-03-25a.377#g411

marriage equality ref to happen with or without convention and other ref no one cares about

expectationlost

was recently wondering how many watched each video (or stream?)
https://www.youtube.com/user/ConstitutionIe
this spreadsheet list them https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11AU22MSPJ90JrrOTbkmZWia3Dh1QWgbPv3HYpmGkTEI/edit?usp=sharing

unsurprisingly its marriage equality

thanks to Martin Hawksey for the google youtube api script https://mashe.hawksey.info/2015/07/getting-the-details-of-uploads-to-any-youtube-channel-into-a-google-sheet/

31,000 total views

expectationlost

RangeR wrote: »

Incorrect


Looking like this is correct.


Incorrect, generally.

finally watched the discussion videos re preisdential term, don't know why i didn't before just thought it would be hours to watch, with barely a mention of candidate age, its was half hours with some mention

let me ask you ranger again who wrote the ballot questions?

they are discussed by the room but who wrote them was it the advisors after talking with the convention members on the first day of presentations?

i really should have gotten in touch with somebody running the convention and got to answer how it got on the convention ballot

watching the Emerging Themes video at 19 minutes https://youtu.be/jPMRCD_ktww its seems it came from the table Derek Keating TD was on (he mentioned it in his submission) and from the table Ivana Bacik was on and (Labour's legal advisor Cllr Richard Chambers mentioned it in his submission) and from table 6 (I can't see which politicians were on that table) but generally its seemed to come from a question of having a maximum age for presidency which came from two tables, considering the age of our current president and whether he'd want or feel obliged to do two terms and considering the discussion of reducing the age of voting to 16/17 and Dail candidacy to 18.

RangeR

expectationlost wrote: »

finally watched the discussion videos re preisdential term, don't know why i didn't before just thought it would be hours to watch, with barely a mention of candidate age, its was half hours with some mention

let me ask you ranger again who wrote the ballot questions?

they are discussed by the room but who wrote them was it the advisors after talking with the convention members on the first day of presentations?

i really should have gotten in touch with somebody running the convention and got to answer how it got on the convention ballot

watching the Emerging Themes video at 19 minutes https://youtu.be/jPMRCD_ktww its seems it came from the table Derek Keating TD was on (he mentioned it in his submission) and from the table Ivana Bacik was on and (Labour's legal advisor Cllr Richard Chambers mentioned it in his submission) and from table 6 (I can't see which politicians were on that table) but generally its seemed to come from a question of having a maximun age for presidency which came from two tables, considering the age of our current president and whether he'd want or feel obliged to do two terms.

Ok. wow. It's been a few years. The secretariat write up the ballots but only when agreed by the 100. The ballot paper, from what I can remember, would always have at the very least, the question put to us by government. However, it would also have a handful [top 3 or 4] "emerging themes" too.

There have been some occasions where discussing what goes on the ballet took an hour or more of "100" discussions as there was sometimes not a consensus on how the ballot should be formed. If it went on too long, Tom would guillotine the discussion and define the ballot based on how he felt the majority of the discussion was going.


How the emerging themes are worked out is that each table has a facilitator who does just that, facilitates the discussion in a, usually, unbiased, way. Each table would also have a note taker, who takes notes of each of the discussions. Some note takers were better than others but that's just life. Periodically throughout the weekend, there would be meetings held between the secretariat, Tom Arnold and the facilitators/note takers. Emerging Themes are taken from those meetings. I never got to see these meetings. They were always done VERY QUICKLY, during our down time.... over lunch, during 10-20 minute coffee break etc.

expectationlost

RangeR wrote: »

Ok. wow. It's been a few years. The secretariat write up the ballots but only when agreed by the 100. The ballot paper, from what I can remember, would always have at the very least, the question put to us by government. However, it would also have a handful [top 3 or 4] "emerging themes" too.

There have been some occasions where discussing what goes on the ballet took an hour or more of "100" discussions as there was sometimes not a consensus on how the ballot should be formed. If it went on too long, Tom would guillotine the discussion and define the ballot based on how he felt the majority of the discussion was going.


How the emerging themes are worked out is that each table has a facilitator who does just that, facilitates the discussion in a, usually, unbiased, way. Each table would also have a note taker, who takes notes of each of the discussions. Some note takers were better than others but that's just life. Periodically throughout the weekend, there would be meetings held between the secretariat, Tom Arnold and the facilitators/note takers. Emerging Themes are taken from those meetings. I never got to see these meetings. They were always done VERY QUICKLY, during our down time.... over lunch, during 10-20 minute coffee break etc.

thanks
and the note takers and facilitators were members of the 100? (politicians or civilians?)

it looked to me that David Farrell led the way on what was on the ballot initially before it was reviewed again the next day.

was the age of the presidential candidate mentioned as an issue on your table?

RangeR

expectationlost wrote: »

thanks
and the note takers and facilitators were members of the 100? (politicians or civilians?)[/quote0]
N0, they were not in the 100. I believe they were students in political science studies but really not sure.

expectationlost wrote: »

it looked to me that David Farrell led the wy on what was on the ballot initially before it was reviewed again the next day.

Dave was one of our designated regular experts. The regular experts were chosen by the secretariat and agreed with by the Steering Committee.

expectationlost wrote: »

was the age of the presidential candidate mentioned as an issue on your table?

Yes, and at many tables. While we're on that, I don't believe it should have been anywhere near top of the referendum pile by gov.ie

expectationlost

RangeR wrote: »

expectationlost wrote: »

thanks
and the note takers and facilitators were members of the 100? (politicians or civilians?)[/quote0]
N0, they were not in the 100. I believe they were students in political science studies but really not sure.


Dave was one of our designated regular experts. The regular experts were chosen by the secretariat and agreed with by the Steering Committee.


Yes, and at many tables. While we're on that, I don't believe it should have been anywhere near top of the referendum pile by gov.ie

it was picked because it was on the bottom of the pile.

although you had been spending those sessions talking about voting and candidate age, I'm surprised only one table raised the issue of the presidential oath.

one table expressed the view that the President's Oath of Office should be amended to accommodate the election of non-religious candidates.

ETA: First Report Voting Age & Presidential Term https://www.constitution.ie/AttachmentDownload.ashx?mid=e1f8e128-2496-e211-a5a0-005056a32ee4

RangeR

expectationlost wrote: »

RangeR wrote: »

although you had been spending those sessions talking about voting and candidate age, I'm surprised only one table raised the issue of the presidential oath.

That may be a little erroneous, in the report. Many tables mentioned the removal of various religious references, over the entire duration of the convention. Although I can't remember the specifics per table per weekend.

Removal of religious references was actually quite a high topic of contention. We weren't allowed to bring it as an actual topic. I believe it was one of those AOB's towards the end but didn't get enough votes. My view is that all references should be removed.

expectationlost

RangeR wrote: »

expectationlost wrote: »

That may be a little erroneous, in the report. Many tables mentioned the removal of various religious references, over the entire duration of the convention. Although I can't remember the specifics per table per weekend.

Removal of religious references was actually quite a high topic of contention. We weren't allowed to bring it as an actual topic. I believe it was one of those AOB's towards the end but didn't get enough votes. My view is that all references should be removed.

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?